Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has announced that he will be voting for Sen. Barack Obama, citing the Democrat’s “ability to inspire” and the “inclusive nature of his campaign.”
“He has both style and substance. I think he is a transformational figure,” Powell said on NBC’s “Meet the Press…”
“I have voted for members of both parties in the course of my adult life. And as I said earlier, I will vote for the candidate I think can do the best job for America, whether that candidate is a Republican, a Democrat or an independent,” he added…
“I will ultimately vote for the person I believe brings to the American people the kind of vision the American people want to see for the next four years,” he said. “A vision that reaches out to the rest of the world, that starts to restore confidence in America, that starts to restore favorable ratings to America. Frankly, we’ve lost a lot in recent years.”
Not a surprise. Especially from a more traditional Republican than the sectarian crew in charge for the past 8 years.
#30. Actually, it was well known at the time (as it is now) that Powell was decidedly unenthusiastic about going to war in Iraq and was most assuredly NOT one of the neocon war mongers.
anyone who called Powell a neocon at the time or now – either to praise or damn him – does not know what they are talking about.
Now Obama can cruise to an easy victory – having secured the elusive black vote with the endorsement of Colin Powell.
Without this critical endorsement I’m sure most black voters would have rallied behind McCain.
#30 – MikeN – I thought Colin Powell was one of the evil neo-cons?
He wasn’t a neo-con. If he was, he would still have been part of Bush’s regime.
Colin Powell is a first class cluster f**k. If he hadn’t been so quick to talk Bush the Elder into pulling the plug on the pounding of the Iraqi Army during the first gulf war, the conflict now wouldn’t even be necessary.
#36 – contempt – …the conflict now wouldn’t even be necessary.
Why the heck was Bush Jr’s invasion necessary?
#36 – contempt…George I has some brains, and knows when to stop. George II has neither. There isn’t much dispute about that except from the wingnuts…
#37 Jagermeister
>>Why the heck was Bush Jr’s invasion necessary?
I suppose the bottom line is after 9/11 the country was demanding it’s pound of flesh so Bush gave it to them.
It would have worked too had he not messed around so long with the United Nations. This blunder gave the Iraqis time to move the weapons of mass destruction to Syria before we got there.
Yes they do exist because we sold them to him to use in their war with Iran.
#38 Olo Baggins of Bywater
Since WWII there have been many presidents who had the political will to get us into a war but none with the courage to win it.
Trying to fight a politically correct war is not smart, but madness.
#39 – contempt
Do you really believe in what you just wrote? 😯
#42. If so, it must be reality that he has contempt for. and it must be so frustrating that Bush himself ultimately admitted there were no WMDs.
#39 & 40 contempt
Even from 2000 miles away, people are laughing their guts out.
#41. If GWB says so, it must be the true. Right? Right?
That is as silly as saying “He lied about WMD and got us into Iraq”. As if the people saying that were blindly relying on his word in the first place. And if they were, they got what they deserve.
Bush had no real idea if the weapons were there when we went to war, and he still doesn’t, aside from a way-past-the-fact investigation of a few Westerners with no real access. He was going along with popular opinion in the first place (maybe not prevailing in the intelligence community, but popular), and was later when he recanted. Common sense says they had nothing operational but were working on them. If they were operational we never would have invaded. But this is SH we are talking about, and he had them before, so common sense says that there is NO reason at all for a dictator such as him to destroy all of his weapons and disband his programs that his scientists gave us details about. It is not as black and white as you would like to believe.
#41 Jagermeister
Unless you can prove otherwise.
#42 doug
He might have admitted that there were no WMD’s in Iraq, but not that they didn’t exist.
#43 QB
There are a lot of Kurds that would also be laughing if those mythical WMD’s were a fantasy, but it seems they can’t because they are dead from exposure to WMD’s.
#45. having the WMDs in the 80s (when they were used on the Iranians and the Kurds) does not equal having them in 2003.
after the UN WMD teams (for whom the neocons had so much, ahem, contempt) wiped out his stockpiles after the Gulf War, SH deliberately pretended that he concealed some of them.
Basically, the Iraqi military believed the myth that it was poison gas that prevented the Iranians from overrunning Iraq, and SH felt he needed to give the impression that he still had some, to deter Iranian aggression.
Oops. big backfire, since the Bushies (and their dupes) come along and use tenuous evidence about WMD as a pretext to invade Iraq.
so, contempt. I will play along and suppose that Saddam actually kept some of his nerve gas and what not – riddle me this: why, if Saddam was looking at a 2003 US invasion, would he send what he believed to be his most potent weapons OUT of the country? just to score a propaganda point against GWB? seems unlikely.
#45 – contempt – Unless you can prove otherwise.
If someone claims there are unicorns in Utah… is it your duty to prove them wrong?
#45 – contempt – … but it seems they can’t because they are dead from exposure to WMD’s.
When was the last time Saddam Hussein used nerve gas or any other WMD against the Kurds?
It’s so much fun reading some of the s#it on this above. McCain is toast. It’s not so much that Obama is the Second Coming as much as McCain and Bible Spice have simply run a horrible, no good, very bad campaign.
That’s largely McCain’s fault. He’s surrounded himself with people vastly less trustworthy and frankly vastly dumber than himself. Palin is primary example. An expedient choice to woo the bible thumpers. She’s proven to be a huge liability.
He’s surrounded himself with people like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina — anybody who’s reading this blog for its technology slant will know that this is pair of imbeciles. Horrible bosses, lousy CEOs and even worse, they are hugely unskilled politicians [again, see part about horrible posses, lousy CEOs].
McCain’s surround himself with people HE, HIMSELF, has righly accused of despicable political smears. But, hey, win he White House by any means. Right? [That’s putting “Country First.”]
Finally, there’s the endless new line of “Pro-America / Anti-America” bullshit coming from the campaign. This is crass, low class, and itself anti-American.
That should say it all. McCain dug his own grave and I for one can’t wait until this wake, um election, is over.
#30–Mike==you ask: “By the way bobbo, would you vote for Powell for President to stick it to those racists?” /// I never vote “for” a candidate as I have never found one trustworthy nor competent in presentation of their plans for America. I always vote against the worst candidate. Whether or not I voted for Powell or anyone else is completely dependent on whom he is running against.
Iraq was never a threat to USA. Even under a dictator, they were a seculartist state and already a balance against the Muslim Fundie States surrounding them. It was shear madness to invade without a complete plan of occupation and evacuation. The obvious action was to keep the inspectors on the job running down weapons caches and simply expand the no fly zone to the entire country.
The notion that the American people wanted to invade Iraq is inane.
#46 doug
Every intelligence agency on the planet reported that Saddam possessed WMD’s before 2003. Even Clinton warned Bush of the danger so if you were president and given this information, what would you believe?
#47
You’re right that is an unfair expectation.
contempt, you’re so cute – in a dumb kind of way.
So is Paddy-O Furniture the most hated poster ever? Deservedly so! So, contempt, Russia, China, India, Israel, Pakistan all have “WMD’s” should we invade them too? Some of them even have more hostile anti-U.S. governments than Iraq had. Why shouldn’t we?
I knew evil was afoot some 7-8 years ago when the neo-cons conflated biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons together as WMD.
We should fear WMD as suitcase size nukes could be transported to USA. We sold chemical weapons to Iraq. Therefore we should be afraid of Iraq giving a nuke to a terrorist group to use against the USA.
Yep, the terror of conflation.
Contempt, stop drinking the koolaid, it makes you sound like an idiot.
http://tinyurl.com/6yljqc
#52 QB
Yeah, having the benefit of hindsight makes us all geniuses.
#53 ROP
You make a false assumption. I just stated some of the reasoning that went into the decision, I never said I believe that we should have invaded Iraq.
#54
Hi bobbo.
#56–contempt==hello yourself.
So, you aren’t singing the neo-con song of the pro-war/support the troops patriot red neck values voters? Its just the sound of gargling with kool-aid.
If you are clever enough to make those types of distinctions, you are clever enough to affirmatively state your position otherwise. And you haven’t.
Right now you are implying that Bush was too weak to resist the unreasonable demands of the war clamoring American public——but you haven’t said that either.
In fact, then, all together, you haven’t said anything==just gargling.
#54 – bobbo – Contempt, stop drinking the koolaid, it makes you sound like an idiot.
Brawndo… 😉
#55 – Special Ed
LOL
#56 – contempt – Yeah, having the benefit of hindsight makes us all geniuses.
Bush knew that Saddam didn’t have WMDs. He lied just to get the war going, so that he could fix his dad’s “mistake” and let Halliburton et al rake profits of the backs of dead American soldiers.
Powell clearly sold his soul to the devil in supporting the Iraq War. I remember thinking at the time that he looked like he was choking on all the lies. Perhaps he’s trying to atone? Or is he fishing for a key post in a new Democrat administration?
In any case, the rats are rapidly deserting the sinking ship.
I like how contempt didn’t try to defend Paddy-O Furniture. You neo-cons have no ability to defend those that F*** up on your side.
#57 bobbo
I don’t know anyone that is pro-war except politicians that use it as a resume enhancer or legacy builder. I think Kennedy just wanted a thrill so we got Vietnam.
#58 Jagermeister
If I had to guess, Bush probably acted on the intelligence what was provided to him. Couple that with the nations need for revenge… well I’m sure you can see how things can snowball from there.
#60 ROP
What did Paddy-O say that needs defending?
#46 “so, contempt. I will play along and suppose that Saddam actually kept some of his nerve gas and what not – riddle me this: why, if Saddam was looking at a 2003 US invasion, would he send what he believed to be his most potent weapons OUT of the country? just to score a propaganda point against GWB? seems unlikely.”
The reason was that Syria was the only other country Iraq was close to politically, in that BOTH were Baathist regimes. The idea being that Saddam kept the bluster up and in the meantime transfer what WMD materials he did have to be hidden by the Syrians. Then Saddam would pretend to back down to pressure from the US and the UN, consent to a search. Nothing shows up, the insectors leave (while in the process getting harried/interfered with like the inspectors before them) and when the heat was off–specifically when those involved in the oil-for-food scandal pushed to remove sanctions—Saddam would start up the program again. Presumably to restart the WMD program as before.
Please keep in mind that France (among others) were in the thick of it. Anyone remember Jacque Chirac? Villepin? They had a stake in helping SH
It didn’t help that the UN had Hans Blixer (sp?) as part of it. He was useless, as was most of the UN. When do-nothings are in charge of being watch dogs (or worse getting paid off), the worst can only be expected.
And most of the intelligence agencies were warning that he had WMD capability or was coming very close to it, including the French intelligence services.
So, combine that with Saddam’s threats to his neighbors (including thretening the Kurdish north with chemical weapons in the run-up to the invasion), Saddam’s continuous provocations against coalition forces in the No Fly zone, coupled with Iraq’s track record…gee, could we pull back and go home when Saddam offered to relent, even to go in exile if we let him off the hook? Holy Hell, even after the invasion he had family members using their purse strings to help fund the Sunni insurgency.
People keep forgetting these things, it’s so much catchier to say “Blood For Oil” when looking at American actions when, in fact, that’s what it was for both our so-called allies as well as our enemies.
There were good reasons for invading. However it does not change the fact that this administration poorly handled what was to happen after the regime change. They certainly didn’t count on Iran getting such a foothold in Iraqi politics, nor that in the process they’d increase the reach of both Iran and its proxy Hezbollah.
As for the first Gulf War, Bush Sr. made the mistake of stopping the invasion just short of Baghdad. There were diplomatic reasons for doing so (in deference to our Arab allies), but removing Saddam then would’ve been preferable. Instead, we stopped. And, when hammering out a few things with the regime Schwartzkoff (sp?) made the mistake of allowing Saddam to maintain use of helicopters. These were used against the Shiites in the South when Bush Sr. encouraged them to revolt against Saddam–but without US support. (Guess he wanted regime change on the cheap, or to weaken SH just enough.) We all know what Saddam did to them in the years ahead.
As for Colin Powell, I do think he has poor political instincts but as an African American leader he chose to support Obama, in part to ‘go along/get along’ but also to regain some of what he lost stumping for Bush at the UN. I’ll give him credit where it’s due but I don’t respect him as much as I once did. How can he cite Palin’s inexperience as a factor and then support Obama? Obama is running for president, Palin isn’t. Obama has more experience running for president than in being a senator, so far as I see. He’s far left and the media brushes off his connections to those on the fringe as if it were nothing. It’s pure ignorance.
Btw, for Colin…He’s worried about who’s going to choose the next two Supreme Court judges. What about who controls Congress? A far left president with a solid Democratic House and Senate, the same ones who helped the current financial crisis come into being. Does he think that’s a good thing?