PDA

View Full Version : What Powell's Endorsement Really Means...


revefsreleets
10-20-2008, 09:27 AM
First off, make no mistake about it, Colin Powell finally making it official that he endorses Obama is a blow to McCain. He has a lot of support from centrist Republicans and Independents.

But it could have been a bigger blow. Everyone has known since August he was going to endorse Obama, but he held back, and I think he did so out of a little lingering deference to his party. It's also no secret that Powell is not pleased that he was made to be the scapegoat by going in front of the UN with what later turned out to be bad intel. The fact that it was intel from all over the World and the best info we had at the time has been so marginalized by Bush's opponents over the years as to almost being revisionist history no longer matters. What people NOW remember is that it was " a lie". It wasn't, but perception is 9/10th of reality, so...

Back on task. I think Powell is endorsing Obama as a big and final "Eff you!" to Bush...but at least he had the good sense to wait until the very end when his endorsement is more of a bazooka blast instead of a nuke.

I think it's worth a couple points, though, and a couple points is all i takes in a close race.

PisnNapalm
10-20-2008, 09:35 AM
I doubt most of the people going to vote democrat even know who he is. It won't matter a wit.

revefsreleets
10-20-2008, 09:40 AM
The people voting Democrat were voting Democrat anyway. If you're talking about the rank and file, working class and poor, they vote for what their Union rep or local paper tells them to vote for.

But if you are talking about Independents and undecided's, this is huge. Powell carries a lot of weight amongst centrist republicans AND Democrats and moderates in general.

HometownGal
10-20-2008, 09:42 AM
Though no surprise to me at all, I believe Powell's endorsement of Obama will sting a little but won't really make that much of a difference in the end result. McCain is gaining on Obama and if he keeps on playing his cards right over the next two weeks, J-Mac has a very legitimate shot to win the White House.

I've lived in the Burgh burbs almost all of my life and I can say with complete honesty that I've never seen an outpouring of Republican support for a candidate like I'm seeing in this election, particularly in areas that are known Demo strongholds.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-20-2008, 10:28 AM
Politics aside....as a Veteran of the first Persian Gulf War...I'm not a big fan of General Powell.

We were blessed to have a leader in the field (Schwarzkopf) who KNEW that politicians get American soldiers killed and that politicians hamper objectives.

As a matter of public record....the CIA After Action Evaluation shows that half of the Republican Guard Armor escaped our forces... including the Hammurabi Division. All the Military leaders were aware of this and Schwarzkopf was prepared to go directly to Bahgdad and eliminate any future threat.

In my judgement, the most important figure in making the decision to end the war prematurely without completing that military objectives.... was General Powell. Certainly it was the elder Bush's responsibility... but he deferred to the judgement of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs .

Powell's advice may have been decisive but in the light of history turned out to be bad advice. Judging the American military by its own criteria.... its own standards.... its own goals.... to destroy the Republican Guard...Powell failed in his duty to the troops by bowing to political pressure.

For those of us who have read Schwarzkopf's book...you can see that Powell is not held in high regards by the General...mostly due to Powell's folding to political opinion and his failure to allow the soldiers in the field to achieve all objectives.

tony hipchest
10-20-2008, 11:09 AM
as soon as iraq started lobbing SCUDS into israel and saudi arabia, the objective shoulda immediately changed from liberating kuwait to toppling baghdad. schwarzkopf knew this. its sad he was ignored. that war was like getting a 2 minute hand job with an oven mit.

with that being said, i think powell endorsing obama lends him alot of credibility. it most certainly cant hurt. on "meet the press" he practically said obama has that "it" factor. :wink:

:chuckle:

Leftoverhard
10-20-2008, 11:12 AM
So, 2 threads on the same topic?

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-20-2008, 11:13 AM
...he practically said obama has that "it" factor. :wink:



:banging:


I dont know at this point if Powell's endorsement will change anyones opinion....If you lean right...Obama is still too far left for Powell to make a difference....and if you lean left it only gives fodder to throw at the right...

...non-factor.

revefsreleets
10-20-2008, 11:28 AM
Disagree again. Powell is a galvanizing force for MY voting bloc: Centrists who lean right fiscally and left socially. There are a lot of us out there, and many are still undecided.

His endorsement means nothing to me personally because it's just sour grapes, but a lot of people have a lot of respect for Powell.

Borski
10-20-2008, 01:45 PM
Yeah, people who are Left or Right, are not going to be swayed to much. But this could have a big impact for moderates and they are the ones who decide elections. I have alot of respect for Powell, but I am still voting for McCain.

I doubt McCain has much of a shot anymore though, and if Obama does get elected, I'd like to see Powell back in office.

Hammer Of The GODS
10-20-2008, 02:20 PM
Powells jump doesn't help Obama because it's one black guy supporting another black guy. Because us Pittsburghers are just a bunch of racists and we have no idea about facts and such ( said with chewin tabacky and a straw hat )!

INSERT SARCASM SMILEY HERE!

MACH1
10-20-2008, 02:22 PM
Powells jump doesn't help Obama because it's one black guy supporting another black guy. Because us Pittsburghers are just a bunch of racists and we have no idea about facts and such ( said with chewin tabacky and a straw hat )!

INSERT SARCASM SMILEY HERE!


Don't forget toting a gun too.

tony hipchest
10-20-2008, 05:23 PM
i think powell made a very informed decision that is more than just sour grapes. in all fairness to him, i think he's wise enough to make these types of decisions w/o them being a knee jerk reaction or to settle the score.-

GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president."

And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

revefsreleets
10-20-2008, 05:43 PM
Of COURSE you don't think it's sour grapes. And I never suspected for a second that you would. That doesn't dissuade me in any way at all from knowing what I know and thinking what I think. The Obama lovers will see this as love for Obama and nothing less. And that's fine...but..........

Powell was "Furious and angry" over the way he perceived he was used and mistreated by the Bush White House. Furious. He despises Donald Rumsfeld, and, by proxy, can't be super overjoyed at all the other chickenhawks in the inner circle. He's very angry that part of his legacy is that he will always be remembered as the one who gave the go-ahead based on false info to "hundreds of millions who followed it" (UN).

Yeah, I'm sure he just let that all go...

There was a 0.000 chance he was going to endorse McCain. The Democrats could have run the corpse of Adolf Hitler and Powell would have at worst simply abstained from endorsing a candidate.

tony hipchest
10-20-2008, 05:53 PM
citing adolph hitler is a HUGE fallacy in debate. it doesnt help your stance much.

anyways powell gave some very legitimate reasons for not endorsing mccain.

but yeah, sour grapes... it couldnt possibly be anything else.

and who doesnt despise d. rumsfeld?

revefsreleets
10-20-2008, 06:06 PM
citing adolph hitler is a HUGE fallacy in debate. it doesnt help your stance much.

anyways powell gave some very legitimate reasons for not endorsing mccain.

but yeah, sour grapes... it couldnt possibly be anything else.

and who doesnt despise d. rumsfeld?

Huh? You do realize my point was made, right? The last line was a throwaway...and therefore NOT a fallacy, since the argument was already concluded.

The meat of the argument remains: Powell despises the Bush administration and just about everyone associated with it. He see's them as tainting his entire career. He wasn't fired, but he wasn't welcomed back with open arms, either. This is old news, anyway...everyone has known this was coming since August. I do give him some props for at least deferring to his old party a little bit and holding out towards the end to minimize political fallout and voter impact. But this endorsement was in the bag from the beginning.

And, finally, Jesus, I HOPE the guy can at least spin up a few talking points in defense of his choice. He's not an idiot, and Obama isn't Satan.

But this was a foregone conclusion. I don't think Obama being black has anything to do with it either. Powell was going to jump ship this time around no matter what...

Dino 6 Rings
10-20-2008, 06:07 PM
Says the same to me as it did when Oprah decided to endorse Obama instead of Clinton.

I imagine...lots of folks that are busy clinging to their guns and religion will feel the same exact way.

revefsreleets
10-20-2008, 06:11 PM
Now I DO think that Oprah's endorsement of Obama was race based. But Powell's wasn't.

And Oprah's was REALLY early on...that was intentional and calculated. That endorsement made him MILLIONS in campaign contributions. There's a whole zombie nation of Oprah following women who are at her beck and call and exist only to do her bidding...OK, maybe it's not THAT extreme, but...

augustashark
10-20-2008, 10:51 PM
Some may say he is a turncoat mother fuc**r! I just see it as Powell was never a conservative anyway. Powell was put in as Sec of state to appease the left anyway. Bush ran his entire 2000 campain on "reaching across the isle". What is striking to me is the way he talked about the new supreme court judges. He feels that there is no place for any more conservative judges!

Take it and run dems, he is on your side now. BTW, don't forget how you lumped him with all the other bush admins. LOL, stab him in the back one day, love him the next (when he endorses your canidate)!

You libs have no shame.:drink:

Preacher
10-20-2008, 11:17 PM
as soon as iraq started lobbing SCUDS into israel and saudi arabia, the objective shoulda immediately changed from liberating kuwait to toppling baghdad. schwarzkopf knew this. its sad he was ignored. that war was like getting a 2 minute hand job with an oven mit.

with that being said, i think powell endorsing obama lends him alot of credibility. it most certainly cant hurt. on "meet the press" he practically said obama has that "it" factor. :wink:

:chuckle:


I find it interesting that you would say this... because the U.N. mandate did not allow for it. It ONLY allowed for the liberation of Kuwait. In fact, to topple Saddam would have been an illegal action in that war.

It was only with the continued violations of the cease-fire and the U.N. vote was it made legal in the second gulf war.

tony hipchest
10-20-2008, 11:52 PM
I find it interesting that you would say this... because the U.N. mandate did not allow for it. It ONLY allowed for the liberation of Kuwait. In fact, to topple Saddam would have been an illegal action in that war.

It was only with the continued violations of the cease-fire and the U.N. vote was it made legal in the second gulf war.screw the u.n. "mandate".

it seems schwartzkopf, LLT, and myself, all share the same views on this subject.

i find it interesting that you would single me out. or are you showing support for powell despite his endorsement of obama?

as soon as iraq lobbed bombs at our isreali and saudi "allies" (i use that term loosely in regards to arabia) the "mandate" shoulda been scrapped.

iraq shoulda been pulverized and saddam toppled back in 91. woulda saved alot of money and lives.

and it coulda been considered a wise investment in our future.

Preacher
10-21-2008, 12:50 AM
screw the u.n. "mandate".

it seems schwartzkopf, LLT, and myself, all share the same views on this subject.

i find it interesting that you would single me out. or are you showing support for powell despite his endorsement of obama?

as soon as iraq lobbed bombs at our isreali and saudi "allies" (i use that term loosely in regards to arabia) the "mandate" shoulda been scrapped.

iraq shoulda been pulverized and saddam toppled back in 91. woulda saved alot of money and lives.

and it coulda been considered a wise investment in our future.

I singled you out, because it was your post. that is all. I honestly do not know your views on the US and the UN, and whether we are fighting an "illegal war" as some would say. I was using your post as a launch into the discussion of legal war. Why a number of people who say this war is illegal, accuse the Bush 41 administration of not "finishing the job" even though doing so would have been a violation of international law under the UN resolution. .

Like I said, I have no idea about your personal position on this topic.

Personally, I think there is always problems when the U.S. subjugates its military might to an international body... that is not a military alliance.

Personally, I would have prefered to remove him, and set up an interim govt. But what would have happen if we violated the UN back then? How would that hhave played in both internal and international politics.

tony hipchest
10-21-2008, 01:26 AM
I singled you out, because it was your post. that is all. I honestly do not know your views on the US and the UN, and whether we are fighting an "illegal war" as some would say. I was using your post as a launch into the discussion of legal war. Why a number of people who say this war is illegal, accuse the Bush 41 administration of not "finishing the job" even though doing so would have been a violation of international law under the UN resolution. .

Like I said, I have no idea about your personal position on this topic.

Personally, I think there is always problems when the U.S. subjugates its military might to an international body... that is not a military alliance.

Personally, I would have prefered to remove him, and set up an interim govt. But what would have happen if we violated the UN back then? How would that hhave played in both internal and international politics.

personally, it sounds like you want your cake and to eat it too... :noidea:

my views on the situation should be pretty clear. religiously and politicaly we are to have israels back. instead we bowed to the oil ($$$$) driven whims of the middle easterns (and the "u.n.")

i stand by my stance. iraq was toppled 10-15 years too late. im not crying over spilt milk though. i just want whats best going on forth....

steelwall
10-21-2008, 01:36 AM
Now I DO think that Oprah's endorsement of Obama was race based. But Powell's wasn't.

And Oprah's was REALLY early on...that was intentional and calculated. That endorsement made him MILLIONS in campaign contributions. There's a whole zombie nation of Oprah following women who are at her beck and call and exist only to do her bidding...OK, maybe it's not THAT extreme, but...


Oprah is one of the most overtly racist people in the lime light. Anyone remember her comment "All whites are racist"? F%^& her. Sickens me to flip through channels and see little white women clapping to her every word......don't you know she thinks you are racist?

Back to the point, had Powell ran for president when he had the chance he would have had my vote hands down, allthough I didnt agree with alot of his policies (especially in Iraq) I felt he was the better man. He chose not to. He has little clought in this, in my opinion.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-21-2008, 05:18 AM
I find it interesting that you would say this... because the U.N. mandate did not allow for it. It ONLY allowed for the liberation of Kuwait. In fact, to topple Saddam would have been an illegal action in that war.

It was only with the continued violations of the cease-fire and the U.N. vote was it made legal in the second gulf war.

You are correct to a point preacher...the U.N mandate stated only that we were to free Kuwait and had no provision as to "invading" Bahgdad...however there were few military restrictions in the mandate as to "how" we were to liberate Kuwait...Following the retreat of the Republican guard and eliminating them WHEREVER they went...was most assuredly within the confines of that mandate. There were no restrictions in place that limited our ability to iradicate the enemy, regardless of which way they were running...towards us or away. It was Powell who decided that a "quick war" was worth the publicity ...and would placade the doves (political motivation over military objective) . You are correct however in saying that we had no wiggle room in becoming an occupying force or in "taking Saddam out" according to the U.N. mandate.

As a side note however... before the war Powell was against using our military superiority in the air in the manner that it was used and ultimately allowed for the short duration of the war...It was Schwartzkopf who demanded that if HE was the General in charge of war operations...then the war needed to play out according to his battle plan and air superiority was a must.

Everyone should do a quick search as to why we didnt use air superiority in Bosnia...and see what General advised against it. Bet you can guess who it was.

Powell also denied the request for tanks and C-130 gunships by Gen. Montgomery in Somalia .... who said he needed tanks because of attacks by Somali militias....Montgomery was adamant that our troops were at risk without it. Colin Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and under pressure by Defense Secretary Les Aspin and U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali ultimately agreed to not send either tanks or the gunships since "U.S. policy in Somalia was to reduce its military presence . . . not to increase it."
Montgomery was told by Powell who always seems to play his cards close to the chest..."There is no stomach in D.C. for new forces, but I think I can get something."

A congressional hearing came to the conclusion that ..."Only compelling military - not diplomatic policy - should ever be used to deny an on-scene commander such a request," .....and "Those officials who advocated and approved this policy must bear the ultimate responsibility for the events that followed."
The report was based on a two-year study of the firefight in Mogadishu Oct. 3, 1993, and said specifically that top administration officials allowed the United Nations to influence deployment of U.S. forces, with disastrous results.

Interesting enough...one of the senators on that comittee...who was very critical of Powell..and called Powell out when he tried to pass the buck and play the "well...I reluctantly went along with the policy of Secretary Aspin" game.....was none other than.....John McCain.

....Sorry if I rambled...just not a big fan of Powell at all....and think that he should spend the rest of his life visiting the graves of soldiers who lost their lives because he didnt have the balls to tell politicians to "let the soldiers fight"

revefsreleets
10-21-2008, 02:08 PM
I've always maintained that it was a mistake to not finsih the job in Iraq I. We were there. We had momentun. It would have been a relatively quick and painless procedure. We had World support. The reasons we SHOULD have are too lengthy to list. The reason we didn't? We let the coalition decide who and how we fight. HUGE and disasterous mistake. Everyone knew we'd be going back sooner or later, and Clinton just held status quo for 8 years. It was a matter of when, not if, and it costs us billions, if not trillions not to mention how many military personel will end up losing their lives over this debacle of their being a sequel to something that should never have been more than a one-off.

Blackhawk Down illustrates perfectly what went down in Somalia. Clinton (with Powell obviously advising him) also unwittingly gave heart to small groups of lightly armed military everywhere by almost announcing that if you inflict a few casualties on US Troops, we will back down and back out...

If McCain was harsh on him for that, I doubt very much Powell simply shrugged it off.

Preacher
10-21-2008, 02:49 PM
My thoughts are that we should have told the U.N....

We will go to Iraq, but we will do so only under the authority of the United States. We will be allies with the UN, but will fight under our own declaration of war. (Which means, we SHOULD HAVE A DECLARED WAR... not a war powers act, but that is a different argument).

Then, we should have went right after Saddam.. smashed him, his govt. his military, etc. etc.

TONY....

My problem is not that i want me cake and eat it too... its that there are two many that hold to a double standard. They demand we play by the U.N. rules... and then in hindsight, condemn when we didn't do what in hindsight should have been done, even if it WASNT in the UN rules.

That is why I wan't us to work along side the UN, but not subjugate ourselves to them.

stlrtruck
10-21-2008, 03:25 PM
The UN is useless anymore. They do not protect other countries or the people in other countries being killed every day.

It has become as political as anything else. It has come time to cut our ties from this use of wasted space in NY, allow a few diplomats to stay as for communication purposes, send the rest of them home (screw diplomatic immunity), and begin over with a group of Allies that will support each other ALL THE TIME!

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-21-2008, 03:27 PM
My thoughts are that we should have told the U.N....

We will go to Iraq, but we will do so only under the authority of the United States. We will be allies with the UN, but will fight under our own declaration of war. (Which means, we SHOULD HAVE A DECLARED WAR... not a war powers act, but that is a different argument).

Then, we should have went right after Saddam.. smashed him, his govt. his military, etc. etc.

.

Couldnt agree more

revefsreleets
10-21-2008, 05:45 PM
I still think the UN has a role to play. But it should be more like the Salvation Army...stick to humanitarian aid and the like. They've drifted far, far from what was originally intended.

Preacher
10-21-2008, 06:17 PM
I still think the UN has a role to play. But it should be more like the Salvation Army...stick to humanitarian aid and the like. They've drifted far, far from what was originally intended.

When nations like Russian and China have a veto on the Security Council...

It is a worthless endeavor.... well, not worthless, but anachronistic.

It served its role. WWIII was avoided in the Cuban missile crisis partly through the UN being a place to convene the world (though much more credit must be given to JFK).

It help keep the world at peace during the cold war. But now, it is just a shell of itself.

revefsreleets
10-21-2008, 06:46 PM
My guess is that there are two schools of thought: The Utopians will want to keep it based on what it's once great potential could have actually become, and the realists who realize the organization is rapidly heading for its nadir. God only knows how much damage the organization might do if it continues it's present decline..

silver & black
10-21-2008, 07:34 PM
I like Powell, but it has no bearing on how I will vote... which is for McCain