Tuesday, July 29, 2014
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

Where will the president be on D-Day anniversary?

Web_OurView_YourView

By
From page A8 | June 04, 2014 |

In 2014, all eyes will be on the D-Day landings beaches and the sites of the Battle of Normandy. The 70th anniversary of D-Day and the Battle of Normandy will be commemorated by many Allied heads of state and hundreds of thousands of visitors from all over the world.

Every year the French have a four-day celebration in Normandy complete with American uniforms, tanks, jeeps and guns. They still honor the Americans who died to save their souls from the Nazis.

June 6, 2014, is the 70th anniversary of D-Day, the largest invasion ever attempted, where 200,000 Americans stormed the beaches at Normandy to begin the final push to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II. D-Day marked the turning point in World War II in Europe. European heads of state make it a point to recall and honor the sacrifices of those who landed in Normandy, as have all our presidents – except one.

In the 69 years since D-Day, there are four occasions when the president of the United States chose not to visit the D-Day Monument that honors the soldiers killed during the Invasion. The occasions were:

  1. Barack Obama, 2010.
  2. Barack Obama, 2011.
  3. Barack Obama, 2012.
  4. Barack Obama, 2013.

For the past 70 years, every American president except President Obama has taken the time to honor the memory and sacrifices of the 6,000 American soldiers killed on D-Day.

  • June 6 2010, President Obama had no events scheduled.
  • June 6, 2011, President Obama met with the National Security team and was interviewed by WEWS Cleveland and WDIV in Detroit about the auto industry – far too busy to visit the D-Day memorial.
  • June 6, 2012, instead of honoring our fallen soldiers, President Obama made a campaign trip to California on Air Force 1 (at our expense) to raise funds for (his) upcoming election.
  • June 6, 2013, President Obama was doing another fundraiser with the multimillionaires in the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Palo Alto, once again at our expense.

Watch the news! Where will he be on June 6, 2014?

Meir I. Horvitz

Fairfield

Letter to the Editor

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 98 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

  • JBJune 03, 2014 - 5:38 am

    It is really not surprising. This man does not really have much love for those that have sacrificed for his freedom. He continues to do as he pleases and will continue to do so because no one challenges him. It appears that they are afraid of him.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • mike kirchubelJune 06, 2014 - 5:41 pm

    It's D Day and he's there. Guess you were wrong.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • 2realJune 03, 2014 - 6:10 am

    He doesnt respect those soldiers because he never was one! He cant even go visit the site like the rest of the american presidents?. I guess hed rather smoke a cigg in the oval office and stare at his forged birth certificate. Thats what you get when you elect a muslim stranger.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • mike kirchubelJune 06, 2014 - 5:43 pm

    It's D Day and he's there. Guess you were wrong.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • BobJune 03, 2014 - 6:12 am

    He's too busy at the mosque, his wife won't wave an American flag,but will wave anybody else's, but he's black so we thought we were doing something great and look what we got, a disappointment at least for me he's a very unpatriotic person and his wife is even more so. That's all I can say that won't send the Secret Police to my door to tell me I can't say things like this

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • mike kirchubelJune 06, 2014 - 5:44 pm

    It's D Day and he's there. Guess you were wrong.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJune 03, 2014 - 6:39 am

    WOW! This letter is so full of holes it is impossible to repair. Good grief Sir, please do some further reading before embarrassing yourself. OH...too late!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJune 03, 2014 - 6:51 am

    It is the attack of the thought police. They project what he is thinking, in order to justify their own behavior.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TJ BairdJune 03, 2014 - 7:18 am

    CD, Are you suggesting that the writer's facts about the President (Obama) are incorrect or the facts about the other Presidents are wrong about the last 70 years?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJune 03, 2014 - 7:49 am

    TJ Baird, in regard to your question: yes, no "facts." Unless he spelled his name correctly and I wouldn't know about that. The rest of you should do some reading, it might help you in future debates.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Arletta CJune 03, 2014 - 8:01 am

    Here are the facts, easily retrieved from a fact-check site online: "The first ever American president to participate in a D-Day commemoration in Normandy was Ronald Reagan on the 40th anniversary of the invasion, June 6, 1984. He visited only that one time during his entire eight-year term. Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, never attended a D-Day commemoration at all. Bill Clinton attended only once, on the 50th anniversary of D-Day in 1994. George W. Bush attended twice during his eight-year term of office: on Memorial Day 2002 and on the 60th anniversary of D-Day in 2004. (He also, in 2001, dedicated a stateside D-Day memorial in Virginia.) As stated above, as of this writing Barack Obama has attended only once during his term of office, on the 65th anniversary of D-Day in 2009. Between 1944 and 2012 — a span of 68 years — exactly four U.S. presidents attended D-Day memorial ceremonies a combined total of exactly six times. Barack Obama was one of them." Would anyone seriously believe that every American president in the past 70 years visited the D-Day memorial in France every single year during his term? It is ludicrous on its face.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJune 03, 2014 - 8:05 am

    Arletta, thanks for the info. I was hoping for the rest of the misinformed to chime in! :)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodJune 03, 2014 - 9:32 pm

    Thanks Arletta. As I recall, Reagan made a great speech that day.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The SugarJarJune 03, 2014 - 7:25 am

    Letter is word-for-word one making its way--a simple search "President Obama and D-Day" comes up with many many fact checking sites. The letter is nothing but false. Untruths. Lies. At least a rewrite of the letter so it isn't plagiarism. Or looks more original at least.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • 2realJune 03, 2014 - 7:39 am

    CD you need to check yourself. Those are facts! Look what YOU put in office!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJune 03, 2014 - 10:06 am

    Definition of a Fact by 2real: Something that reenforces my ideology, or dislike of a person. All that other stuff falls under the lame stream media.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJune 03, 2014 - 8:22 am

    This is standard behavior for those seeking to damage the president. Take a rumor totally devoid of truth and print it as fact. Typical GOP practice that has gone on here for years. Go ahead, bring the deflection and obfuscation you have mastered.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TJ BairdJune 03, 2014 - 8:26 am

    Arletta C - Thank you for the research! My interest was in the facts, not the opinions and commentary of the orginal writer.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • ter666June 03, 2014 - 10:01 am

    DR, I assume this letter is scheduled for print in tomorrow's paper? Now that it has been completely debunked (Thanks Arletta), please consider not printing it. How could you?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJune 03, 2014 - 10:09 am

    Great point!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJune 03, 2014 - 10:15 am

    ter666, I agree. I'm not sure it is fair to deliberately expose a person for this practice. Mr. Horvitz doesn't visit this site so perhaps a note to him along with the removal? This should be a lesson for those of you that so often present a story as "fact" before checking it out.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJune 03, 2014 - 10:22 am

    @CD: I would like to hear the argument from the misinformed, about how both sides should be heard on this. You know, the Fair and Balanced group.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • G-ManJune 03, 2014 - 10:24 am

    Where's he gonna be?..Depends... does the date conflict with any Muslim Holiday,Golf outing,Fund raiser etc?...You liberals are unraveling like a homeless person's sweater...love to watch you twist in the wind..Now we have the little man hosting an Army Deserter's family @the White House..Trade a deserter for 5 top Taliban fighters..Hey BO we have a real soldier still in Mexico..How about picking up that phone you say you have and do something about it...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJune 04, 2014 - 12:45 pm

    @G-Man: Considering you probably could care less where any other President went on any particular day, its funny to see you jump into a losing thread. You still waiting for that landslide victory, with Karl Roves "real" math????

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • mike kirchubelJune 03, 2014 - 6:05 pm

    Too late to scratch Earl Heal's fact-free column.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • 2realJune 03, 2014 - 2:39 pm

    Its the truth. Like it or not. Hes not a citezen and all you sheeps are believing it. CD and danny get a room already

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJune 03, 2014 - 4:20 pm

    2real, you're proving what an immature child you are. Best go back to moms basement and leave the big boys room now. If you really have a wife and kids the authorities will put them in witness protection...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • 2realJune 03, 2014 - 2:41 pm

    Next time do a little research before you vote.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • 2realJune 03, 2014 - 2:44 pm

    You have to be a citizen to be president and in my opinion you should serve. The guys a muslim and dont give a rats @$$about america. I cant wait till 2016!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 03, 2014 - 3:49 pm

    It appears 2r is the only one left standing; the only one with no shame.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • 2realJune 03, 2014 - 4:53 pm

    CD, i like that you think im young... makes me think i still got it ;) sorry for your support in everything that deserves none. Face it god is real,being gay is wrong and the choice you made to elect this clown of a president was WRONG! you can try to turn it around on me as much as youd like but your in a small group of mislead, confused and sad people my friend.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJune 03, 2014 - 5:00 pm

    Wow, when you dig a hole, you dig it deep. Keep flocking that chicken.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The SugarJarJune 03, 2014 - 6:17 pm

    I'd say the reason CD says you must be young, "2real" is that he is good-hearted. If you have had much life experience, there'd still be hope for you to learn compassion for others. I like to find the good too, but I don't think I'm as good-hearted as CD.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The SugarJarJune 03, 2014 - 6:19 pm

    Should read if you haven't had much life experience...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJune 03, 2014 - 8:29 pm

    2real, you're proving what an immature not-too-bright older person you are. But we're used to that here so keep it coming. The more you say the worse you look. How nice for you to squeal behind an alias.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • 2realJune 03, 2014 - 6:02 pm

    Im glad people like u have no life after death, not that you have much of one now

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The SugarJarJune 03, 2014 - 6:05 pm

    I think what bothers me most about the letter isn't that it is false, it's that it is plageurised and passed off as the letter writer's own.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 03, 2014 - 6:27 pm

    What bothers me the most is people hate Obama so much they'll not only believe every lie about him throw in their direction, but they pass it on without checking it out. At what point is a person shamed into questioning his sources?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 03, 2014 - 6:31 pm

    Beware, Mr.S, FDC, et al., this could be you!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • One of the AboveJune 03, 2014 - 7:13 pm

    rlw895: please explain your statement.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 03, 2014 - 7:45 pm

    #One: Don't worry about rlw's baseless accusation. After all, we could easily turn it back on him and his peers who believe every false-positive lie and/or non-reported negative coverage (same thing) about Obama without checking it out, simply because they voted for him. I have another theory, however. Liberals know they are backing a loser as POTUS, but they put on a brave front and pretend he is the greatest thing since sliced bread because they really, really dislike conservatives and conservative philosophy. Meanwhile, both sides are saying to themselves, "Thankfully, this too shall pass."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 03, 2014 - 9:28 pm

    Mr.S: I do check things out. In this case I didn't have to because Arletta did it for us. And if you or anyone else catches me in error, I admit it. If we start from the same facts, we usually end up in about the same place. Because I'm trying to be persuasive, the first thing I do is make sure we're all on the same page as to facts. Liars and misleaders need to be called out, such as the source of this letter. It's only then that we should proceed to the next step and talk about what those facts mean to us. The most interesting part of a discussion is to examine why, given the same facts, we end up with different conclusions, but it's rarer than you think. I defend Obama only because I believe he is unfairly and irrationally criticized, not because I believe he is above criticism.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 03, 2014 - 9:39 pm

    Rlw: So we are in agreement--this too shall pass (thank goodness). By the way, would you sort of agree that Obama brought this all upon himself with his early arrogance (fundamentally changing the United States of America) and unapologetic lack of connection with mainstream Americans?The people who propelled him into office before his time really bear the blame for the way he has been treated.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 03, 2014 - 9:59 pm

    Mr.S: I would more than sort of agree that expectations for Obama were too high by his supporters. He is what he is. I wouldn't call it arrogance or being disconnected, but it could be. I don't see it. Aloof, maybe, but that can have lots of causes. The best analysis would be from people who are close to him and don't have a political ax to grind. I voted for Obama, not because I was dazzled, but because my other choice was McCain or Romney. In the 2008 primary I was going to vote for Richardson, but he dropped out, so I voted for Clinton. That should tell you all you need to know this idea that supporters like me think he is some sort of messiah. Would you sort of agree that his opposition is sometimes, if not often, irrational? Take this letter for example.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 03, 2014 - 10:16 pm

    Rlw: I don't think you were overly "snowed" by Obama's potential, but it is too bad so many folks dismissed Romney out of hand as a viable candidate. I'll take his shortcomings over Obama's any day. The same goes for McCain, though he really messed up his own chances.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 03, 2014 - 10:24 pm

    Obama's opposition may be irrational at times, but that is just a measure of how badly he scared mainstream Americans once they saw what this relatively unknown new president was all about. Chalk that one up for the sycophantic and naive mainstream media.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 03, 2014 - 10:53 pm

    Mr.S: So after the 2008 campaign, his opponents were ready to accept him, but he did something to change that. That seems to be your theory. What was the first turning point then?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 03, 2014 - 11:42 pm

    Mr.S: Regarding the 2012 election, after all we'd been through since Reagan, it would have been the final nail in our coffin to elect a plutocrat like Romney. That decision wasn't even close for me. He would not have helped the middle class. He would have helped the banks and Wall Street continue the trend for the 1% to get richer and the 0.1% richer still at the expense of everyone else. If we had a more progressive tax system, it wouldn't be at the expense of everybody else, but the Republicans are entrenched more than on anything with keeping the tax system regressive. That's why I keep saying they have sold out.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 03, 2014 - 9:18 pm

    One: Check your sources.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The SugarJarJune 03, 2014 - 7:51 pm

    @rlw, well I don't mind people hating, but I do care about the reasons and the way they express that hate.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • 2realJune 03, 2014 - 8:57 pm

    Cd, i feel sorry for you i, i really do. I wish i could help you but first step is aknowledging you have a problem. I guess im old school american and your from this new twisted hellhole we live in today. Everything you support is backwards. Hes good hearted but doesnt believe in god? Issues

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJune 03, 2014 - 10:13 pm

    2real, thank you. You should have it so good.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodJune 03, 2014 - 9:35 pm

    Do we know the president's travel plans for June 6? It is, after all, the 70th anniversary of D-Day. Our WWII veterans are leaving us fast now, these opportunities to recognize them should not be missed.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodJune 05, 2014 - 9:49 am

    We know the answer now. Kudos to the president!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksJune 04, 2014 - 6:51 am

    I'm not sure which is worse. The fact this letter ran today (and I get the press deadline thing) or the folks that don't know any better will buy it. There will be plenty of them running around repeating this nonsense while Mr. Horvitz in his ign*rance pounds his chest. Sad.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • ter666June 04, 2014 - 8:32 am

    It's hard to believe it's a deadline issue. They printed results from the election that ended last night. This letter was debunked yesterday at 8:01am. Glen Faison, since you believed this letter enough to print it, I'm a Nigerian prince with millions of dollars that I need help getting out of the bank. Want to help?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Alexis RabournJune 04, 2014 - 12:23 pm

    I've seen this before when it was going around the web and it turns out if you check with snopes.com in fact Obama is one of four U.S. Presidents who has been to Normandy for D-Day. Reagan was the first to go, then Clinton, Bush and Obama. There are several monuments in the U.S. but it appears that the article is referring to Normandy. I'm curious you don't check out the truth of such statements before you print them.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • ter666June 04, 2014 - 1:12 pm

    What's even more appalling is that the letter was debunked yesterday with plenty of time to retract it. Yet they printed it anyway.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • BarbaraJune 04, 2014 - 1:46 pm

    You really should check your facts before publishing a letter. This person did not write this, found the exact wording on Scopes.com and it is false. Pres Obama visited Normandy for the 65th D-Day celebration in 2009, only 4 presidents have ever attended and he was one of them. People are so quick to criticize & complain. Too bad, really.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 1:52 pm

    I get the feeling it's not the first time, nor will it be the last. When's the last time some pro-Obama "liberal" did something like this? So verifiably false? It doesn't happen. Why does one side feel more justified in lying--or at least negligently or carelessly passing on false information--than the other side?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 04, 2014 - 3:41 pm

    Rlw: Does Mr. Horvitz represent my "side?" One "side" is more likely to lie than the other? By that, I presume you mean the conservative "side." But, as any one who is paying attention will attest, Mr. Obama and company don't even pretend to tell the truth about much of anything. No, they deal out lies straight up and with a straight face. Tiny RECENT case in point: Susan Rice (once again) went out on Sunday talk shows to inform the world that Sgt. Bergdahl has served his country with "honor and distinction." This to justify the phoney Rose Garden ceremony designed to give dems a boost before the election, and paint Obama as a caring President. Oh, and then there are those five freed terrorist leaders to justify. And this, in spite of an Army investigation published in 2010 that concluded Bergdahl had abandoned his post. One side does indeed take more liberties with the truth than the other, Rlw.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 3:53 pm

    Mr.S: Predictable response, but I'm serious.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 04, 2014 - 4:09 pm

    Rlw: I'm sure that you are serious in your accusation. Wrong, but serious. If you said that one "side" is no more likely to lie than the other, you might be closer to the truth. However, are you willing to say how you reached the conclusion that the conservative side is more likely to lie (about Obama)? Does it have anything to do with the issue of race, perhaps?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 4:23 pm

    Mr.S: I've reached my conclusion by simple observation of these pages for several years now. It's not a scientific sample, but I see no reason to believe the DR readership in much different than much of America. Anti-Obama people are much more reckless with the truth. This letter is a perfect example. You justify it by a belief that Obama lies. But we his defenders (not necessarily even supporters) don't reciprocate in kind. So even if you don't respect HIM, show us the respect of checking your sources and bringing something real to the table.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 04, 2014 - 8:35 pm

    Rlw: What part of my 3:41 pm post today do you find to be untrue or lacking in verifiable sources? It appears you and your homies assume every post by a conservative around here is based upon misinformation by Fox. That makes your jobs easier, does it not? But only in your mind. Better wake up and show a little more respect yourself. Fox is not the only news source that criticizes Obama these days. Better late than never, I suppose.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 11:11 pm

    Mr.S: How about "Mr. Obama and company don't even pretend to tell the truth about much of anything."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 09, 2014 - 12:23 am

    Mr.S: How do YOU explain a statement like that? Whether you're prejudiced against Obama or not, you have to understand that when people read some utterance like that coming from you, they are going to assume that you ARE.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 09, 2014 - 6:19 am

    Rlw: It might be a small exaggeration, but a small one nevertheless. To point out that the POTUS is truth-challenged much of the time should not be news to anyone, even an irrational proponent like yourself.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 09, 2014 - 2:56 pm

    Mr.S: Whatever. My comment was well meant.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 09, 2014 - 3:18 pm

    Rlw: Ok. Now I see that you were giving me the benefit of the doubt as to the level of my racism re: Obama. I do appreciate that, but at the same time I don't feel I am too far afield in my observation about his tendency to make egregious and untrue statements about some of the most important issues of the day. Whether or not these statements have been purposely misleading on his part or he was stating an untruth out of ignorance of the facts is not particularly important to me. As POTUS, he needs to be truthful and correct on the facts. With the resources at his command to be in possession of the facts, there is no excuse. I fear that often he uses the cover of plausible deniability, aided by a staff well trained to keep him shielded from the facts so as to avoid personal embarassment or admission of failure. It's all in the culture he has nurtured with his closest advisors, and the unwillingness of the mainstream media, including the whitehouse press corps, to hold him accountable.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 09, 2014 - 3:40 pm

    Mr.S: Well said. But don't you see, that's quite a conspiracy you've concocted when you include the press? Implausible. I don't see the "mainstream media" willing to give Obama a "pass" when they have the goods on him. FactCheck has given him plenty of Pinocchios. We've discussed a few specific examples over the years, and I'm not seeing this habitual stating of untruths. There are almost always other explanations for stories or the slant on them being different. To the contrary, it's the anti-Obama "side" that seems to play free and easy with the facts, this letter being only the most recent glaring example. You can't now defend it, can you? It's a pack of lies, isn't it? And what isn't a lie is presented in a way to put the most negative light on Obama possible. Then he shows up in Normandy anyway!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • mike kirchubelJune 09, 2014 - 3:56 pm

    One can only assume that Horvitz' letter had quite an impact in the Oval Office.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 4:33 pm

    Mr.S: Whenever I see people of different races behaving irrationally towards each other, I suspect race has something to do with it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 04, 2014 - 4:41 pm

    Got it, Rlw. You have played the race card. And then in the next breath you lecture me about showing your side respect. Lol!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 4:48 pm

    Mr.S: What a joke! Did you prepare that response before you asked the question? What answer would NOT have elicited that response?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 04, 2014 - 5:20 pm

    How about a simple, "No?"

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 11:21 pm

    Mr.S: "No" to what? Yes, respect people for what they say, not what you think they say. Your idea of what the "race card" is is no justification for being reckless with the truth. It appears to me you're simply looking for an escape from this discussion, so you demonize your antagonist with a false accusation and sign off. It's a form of false equivalence. I have to do something wrong, even if made up in your own mind, to justify your transgressions.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 4:00 pm

    Did Benedict Arnold serve with honor and distinction?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinJune 04, 2014 - 5:18 pm

    @RLW: He served with honer until he got hosed.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 05, 2014 - 9:54 am

    Right, Danny. Honor and distinction. He was the officer most responsible for the American victory at Saratoga. So a soldier can serve with honor and distinction AND later be a deserter or even a traitor. Susan Rice did not lie.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • NitPickerJune 05, 2014 - 1:06 pm

    rlw895, did Susan Rice tell the truth?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 05, 2014 - 2:22 pm

    NP: If your point is "didn't lie" isn't the same as "told the truth" you'd be correct. Telling the truth is the higher standard. You can tell a falsehood and not lie, but if you tell the truth, you can't be lying. In this case, I believe Susan Rice told the truth for the reason I was trying to illustrate in my Benedict Arnold example. But in context, the point she was making is that Bergdahl deserved to be rescued. She made the "honor and distinction" reference as one of the reasons why. It's not likely to be a lie in that context, even if untrue.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • NitPickerJune 05, 2014 - 7:31 pm

    rlw895: you lost me in your blizzard of snow. Ten pounds of verbiage and no substance. Blah blah blah blah blah......

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 05, 2014 - 8:59 pm

    You asked, Grasshopper. No, wait; that should be Paleo-grasshopper. The short answer is "yes."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 4:03 pm

    And yes, Mr. Horvitz represents your side.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 4:11 pm

    So do JB, 2real, Bob, G-Man, FDC, EarlH, RodK, JohnT, when it comes to being irrationally anti-Obama. Amazing you would defend you side in the long shadow of this letter.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • BarbaraJune 04, 2014 - 1:54 pm

    Just found this on the White House Blog: On Friday, President Obama will visit Normandy to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion by Allied forces. To honor the Americans who fought and died in the campaign, President Obama and President Hollande will participate in a ceremony at the American cemetery close to Omaha Beach, the site of the American landing in Normandy. We suggest that Americans wishing to attend the ceremony at the cemetery as part of the general public, please email the U.S. Embassy in Paris for additional information. If you are a World War II veteran attending the ceremony, please email the U.S. Defense Attaché Office in Paris. We expect large numbers of visitors at the events on the 6th. To aid in your visit, we suggest contacting these U.S. Offices even if you have received tickets in advance so we may assist all Americans as much as possible on this day of events. Shame on you DR for publishing that letter in today's paper!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodJune 04, 2014 - 1:59 pm

    I agree. My 91-year-old mother in the Veterans Home of Missouri would too.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 2:01 pm

    What a great president we have! He didn't forget.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 04, 2014 - 11:30 pm

    Mr.S: "Obama's opposition may be irrational at times, but that is just a measure of how badly he scared mainstream Americans once they saw what this relatively unknown new president was all about." You said it, now please explain. But let me observe that if you're correct, he scared "mainstream Americans"--presumably ones who started out supporting him--so much that he won a second term in a landslide. Something doesn't add up. I maintain that the irrational opponents to Obama NEVER supported him. Their irrational opposition predates his election and therefor has nothing to do with anything he's done while in office. That makes more sense. If I'm correct, your statement is patently false.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 05, 2014 - 8:17 am

    Rlw: You are correct about the second term given to Obama: Something doesn't add up. When I thought about that, it suddenly occurred to me that it was, and still remains, the IRRATIONAL PROPONENTS of Obama who bear the responsibility for our current malaise. "Elections have consequences." So said our president. I'll give him credit for being truthful there.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 05, 2014 - 9:47 am

    Mr.S: That may be, but it's a different subject. Do you admit that the irrational OPPOSITION to Obama predated his election?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 05, 2014 - 10:48 am

    Rlw: Only if you agree that Romney had an equally virulent force of irrational opposition to contend with, what with being rich and a Mormon. His problem was that he lacked Obama's army if irrational proponents.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 05, 2014 - 12:15 pm

    Mr.S: Fine. I've never denied it. Romney do doubt had people who voted against him simply because he is LDS and others for whom it was a factor in their opposition. Anti-Mormonism isn't dead in American by a long shot. As for his being rich, I don't think that was a factor at all because most national politicians are rich. His being super-rich was more of a factor, especially when he made statements that indicated he was more loyal to his class than his country. But let's get back to the irrational opposition to Obama that predated his election, which you now concede.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 05, 2014 - 12:25 pm

    *no doubt

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithJune 05, 2014 - 2:41 pm

    Rlw: Just to be clear: Are you using the concept of "pre-election irrational opposition" as a euphemism for "racist and racism?" If so, I contend that the racism in "pre-election irrational support" that seems apparent in Obama's victories far outweighed the former, regardless of the specific demographic that used race as a basis for electing him. So, your "side" won that one. Why fret about the irrational opposition?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 07, 2014 - 11:27 pm

    Mr.S: Not quite, but close to a euphemism. I can't be sure what causes the irrationality, but I suspect ra(ism was and is a big part of it. But before you accuse me of "playing the race card" and go stomping off in a superior huff, understand that I think just about everyone who has grown up in the U.S. is ra(ist, and it's not a bad thing except when it causes people to behave irrationally, or worse. Your "irrational support" for Obama is no doubt true, but we'd have to do some more study to understand its significance relative to the irrational opposition. Turnout was enhanced by Obama's race on both sides. The problem is AFTER the election the irrational opponents didn't sit back like you suggested earlier, and give Obama a chance. They organized into the tea parties, egged on and legitimized by the mainstream Republican economic conservatives. It's been a national embarrassment.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • ElaineJune 09, 2014 - 2:58 pm

    President Obama attended a ceremony in Normandy his first year as president, in 2009. President Obama has not publicly celebrated D-Day since 2009, but this, as Snopes points out, is not at all uncommon. President George W. Bush did the same in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003, and 2002. President Obama visited Normandy for the recent 70th anniversary of D-Day and commemoratory celebration, and co-chaired the event with French president Francois Hollande.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
.

Solano News

 
Library teens plan summer reading party

By Glen Faison | From Page: A3

 
Weather for Tuesday, July 29, 2014

By Daily Republic staff | From Page:

 
Big-rig driver strikes telephone lines in Fairfield

By Ryan McCarthy | From Page: A6, 2 Comments | Gallery

 
Fairfield police log: July 27, 2014

By Glen Faison | From Page: A12

Suisun City police log: June 27, 2014

By Glen Faison | From Page: A12

 
Caltrans makes I-80 lane change

By Barry Eberling | From Page: A3, 4 Comments

 
Fairfield tries to end Cordelia Road detour

By Barry Eberling | From Page: A3, 15 Comments | Gallery

 
‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ primed for big screen

By Amy Maginnis-Honey | From Page: A7 | Gallery

.

US / World

 
Sacramento Gold Rush Days canceled due to drought

By The Associated Press | From Page:

 
Man charged in teen’s 9-month disappearance

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

 
Deal to improve veterans’ health care costs $17B

By The Associated Press | From Page: , 1 Comment | Gallery

Suspect dead, 2 marshals and cop wounded in NYC

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

 
New fears about Ebola spread after plane scare

By The Associated Press | From Page: , 1 Comment

In Iraq’s Mosul, radicals unleash their vision

By The Associated Press | From Page: , 1 Comment

 
Fighting in Ukraine prompts residents to flee

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

 
Witnesses: Thunderstorm hit beach without warning

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

Suspect’s mom also charged in Long Beach burglary

By The Associated Press | From Page:

 
City: Emails show ‘cozy’ ties of PG&E, regulator

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

Pool water dumped in South Tahoe; resort fires 3

By The Associated Press | From Page:

 
Additional charge filed in California wildfire

By The Associated Press | From Page:

California governor takes dig at Texas guard plan

By The Associated Press | From Page: , 2 Comments | Gallery

 
.

Opinion

Editorial cartoons for July 29, 2014

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page:

 
 
.

Living

Horoscopes for July 29, 2014

By Holiday Mathis | From Page: B5

 
Today in History for July 29, 2014

By The Associated Press | From Page:

I don’t want to have intimate contact since learning I had a STD

By Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar | From Page:

 
Community Calendar: July 29, 2014

By Susan Hiland | From Page:

.

Entertainment

Kevin Bacon brings his ‘Six Degrees’ to Comic-Con

By The Associated Press | From Page:

 
Sarah Palin launches online subscription channel

By The Associated Press | From Page: A7, 1 Comment | Gallery

‘Sharknado’ sequel has bite and lots of laughs

By Frazier Moore | From Page: A7 | Gallery

 
TVGrid July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B6

.

Sports

Giants lose 5th straight, 5-0 to Pirates

By The Associated Press | From Page:

 
 
Lakers finally confirm Byron Scott is new coach

By The Associated Press | From Page:

Raiders relying on healthy Watson to solidify line

By The Associated Press | From Page:

 
This date in sports history for Tuesday, July 29, 2014

By The Associated Press | From Page:

Quarterback Johnny Manziel’s day at Browns camp

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

 
Judge OKs record-setting $2B sale of Clippers

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

Humphrey to savor Hall of Fame day with ‘wingman’

By The Associated Press | From Page:

 
Rays’ Archer: ‘Never saw Hank Aaron flip his bat’

By The Associated Press | From Page:

 
Reed HOF induction gives Bills cause to celebrate

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

In the Pits: Gordon eyeing 5th title after big Brickyard win

By Jenna Fryer | From Page: | Gallery

 
Marketing agreement an obstacle in US bid for 2024

By The Associated Press | From Page:

Sailors to navigate dirty water in 1st Rio test

By The Associated Press | From Page:

 
Manningham back with Giants, with no guarantees

By The Associated Press | From Page:

.

Business

Contracts to buy US homes slip in June

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

 
FAA proposes to fine Southwest Airlines $12M

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

Stocks pause as traders await key economic news

By The Associated Press | From Page:

 
Zillow buying Trulia to build real estate titan

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

Dollar Tree steps up fight, buys Family Dollar

By The Associated Press | From Page: | Gallery

 
.

Obituaries

.

Comics

B.C. July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

 
Get Fuzzy July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

Baldo July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

 
Baby Blues July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

Rose is Rose July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

 
Zits July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

Crossword July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B5

 
Garfield July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

Pickles July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

 
Beetle Bailey July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

Frank and Ernest July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

 
Word Sleuth July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B5

Peanuts July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

 
Cryptoquote July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B5

For Better or Worse July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

 
Bridge July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B5

Wizard of Id July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

 
Dilbert July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

Sally Forth July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

 
Blondie July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B4

Sudoku July 29

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B5