Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama

Published on October 19th, 2008

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.

110 users responded in " Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 moss said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:36 am

The best smirk from the article is from an interviewer talking to Powell weeks ago about endorsing John McCain:

Powell notes he’s known McCain for years and he’s “looking for a reason to vote for him. He hasn’t found it yet.”

# 2 QB said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:40 am

I watched him on Meet the Press. It’s nice when grownups talk…

# 3 J said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:46 am

That was the final nail in coffin.

# 4 Mark Derail said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:46 am

Man, I sure feel for those “Americans” that refuse to vote Democrat, no matter the reasons.

We get similar up here, sections of Quebec, Montreal’s traditional English majority living on the West tip of the island, where two seats are.

No matter if it’s Federal or Provincial, it’s always the Liberal party that wins.

But c’mon, it’s not a Governor you guys are voting for! Forget about Democrat vs Republican. Barrack is such the obvious choice.

The Secret Service will have lots of work on their hands, protecting Barrack from white extremists that think only the White Man represents God’s Image.

Ahh, glad I got that off my chest.

# 5 Dallas said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:55 am

I’m sure many republicans will now see Colin Powell as being “a little darker”.

# 6 Paddy-O said, on October 19th, 2008 at 7:18 am

Colin was royally screwed over by Bush, Cheney & Rummy. Not surprised he’s endorsing Obama. It is interesting that he’s waited until “the writing is on the wall” to endorse though.

# 7 bobbo said, on October 19th, 2008 at 7:18 am

He allowed himself to be sold and then promote the war in Iraq. I don’t believe a fricken thing he says.

# 8 doug said, on October 19th, 2008 at 7:23 am

#6. most high-profile endorsements come late. The Chicago Tribune (100% GOP endorsement record, with the exception of Horace Greely and Bull Moose Teddy Roosevelt) endorsed Barack last week, too.

the imprimatur of respectable conservatives makes it a bit more difficult to convincingly claim that Barack is a wing-nut who pals around with terrorists.

But I digress. I have to get back to watching Senator McCain using taxpayer money to accuse Barack of being a Socialist …

# 9 Paddy-O said, on October 19th, 2008 at 7:40 am

#8 doug, “The Chicago Tribune (100% GOP endorsement record, …)endorsed Barack last week, too.”

Obama is a Chicago pol. Not really relevant.

All the major personal endorsements were done long ago.

# 10 doug said, on October 19th, 2008 at 7:52 am

#9. Oh, very relevant – the Trib NEVER endorsed a Democrat before. period. that is not something that can just be dismissed.

Plus there have been a number of other newspapers who endorsed Bush in 2004 which have endorsed Barack.

# 11 Pmitchell said, on October 19th, 2008 at 7:53 am

Irony is the vote McCain ad appearing right next to this post on the main page

# 12 sam said, on October 19th, 2008 at 7:55 am

To #4 Obama’s policies in the mideast will determine what the israeli mossad does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad

# 13 James Hill said, on October 19th, 2008 at 7:56 am

Not a surprise, since I called it two days ago on this blog.

This puts my vote back in play. I’m sure it will make many on the right rethink their votes.

# 14 Thermo said, on October 19th, 2008 at 8:18 am

#10
It is not relevant at all. They NEVER endorsed anyone not from from Chicago over someone from another state either. It just prove that the state is more important.

Also, lets see if Powell is called a racist. He along with 90% of blacks are voting based on race.

# 15 Billy Bob said, on October 19th, 2008 at 8:24 am

the sectarian crew in charge

Thought you’d slip this anti-Semitic snipe by, did ya, Eidard? I’m on to you! I’ve notified Abe Foxman and he’s knocking on your door right now!

# 16 R.O.P. said, on October 19th, 2008 at 8:45 am

Who’s the racist Thermo? Demeaning black folks by suggesting they are voting on race rather than Obama being the best candidate is pretty rude.

# 17 chuck said, on October 19th, 2008 at 8:45 am

The headline should read “Colin Powell jumps on the band-wagon”. People just seem to like voting for the guy who’s going to win.

What I find remarkable is the number of “regular” conservative/republican types who have decided they don’t like McCain, so they’re going to vote for Obama.

McCain is not the ideal conservative/republican candidate. But Obama is so far to the left in comparison that it’s astonishing.

# 18 QB said, on October 19th, 2008 at 8:46 am

#14 Thermo said: “Also, lets see if Powell is called a racist. He along with 90% of blacks are voting based on race.”

Black vote for Kerry in 2004 was 91%. Grow up.

# 19 Mr. Fusion said, on October 19th, 2008 at 9:20 am

#9, Cow-Paddy,

Obama is a Chicago pol. Not really relevant.

I really hope you enjoy tasting your own foot. The Chicago Tribune has NEVER before endorsed a Democrat*. That includes Illinois Governor and Chicagoan Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956.

*They did endorse Teddy Roosevelt who many consider a Democrat in the wrong clothes.

Suggestion for you. Next time before hitting the “Submit” button, get up, leave the room, when you come back read what you wrote, then consider it again.

# 20 doug said, on October 19th, 2008 at 9:20 am

#18. I wonder if the laundry list of white Secretaries of State that McNasty trotted out will be called racists for endorsing the white guy.

#14. and it is relevant – the Trib is a very Republican paper that mounts a non-stop crusade against the Chicago Democratic ‘machine.’ the fact that they would so very enthusiastically endorse Obama – saying he even has the potential for greatness in him – is an earthquake.

to be fair, it is hard to say that McCain is actually a conservative eligible for endorsement by a conservative paper.

sure, he can prattle on about small government and balancing the budget while he votes for the $700b bailout, then suggest that the gummint should buy up $300b in mortgages. and he insists upon more regulation of Wall Street.

not exactly a big endorsement of small government, there, himself.

# 21 bill said, on October 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am

In my heart it isn’t important who is a Republican or a Democrat. What is important is how did they live their life, are they educated, do they want to serve our country, do I feel comfortable with them representing me and America to the rest of the world. Can they gather around them a cabinet that can offer excellent advice. If they lead will we follow…
Maybe not without complaining, but will we eventually follow their lead.

I haven’t given up yet.

# 22 Libertican said, on October 19th, 2008 at 10:06 am

Yes, Senator Obama will be a very benevolent dictator. I am ordering my poster with his image right now. Congress on the other hand will be very efficient in their work for the people, if you ARE one of the people, that is.

# 23 brendal said, on October 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am

#10 “h, very relevant – the Trib NEVER endorsed a Democrat before. period. that is not something that can just be dismissed.”

When was the last time a Chicago pol made it to the “finals”?

# 24 JMcM said, on October 19th, 2008 at 10:18 am

This means nothing to Sarah and me. After all, Colin is so clueless that he allowed Cheney to bamboozle him.

Who is this Colin Powell, anyway? What do we REALLY know about him?

# 25 pedro said, on October 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am

#22 I like your style

# 26 LinusVP said, on October 19th, 2008 at 10:27 am

Wow.
What a shocker.

# 27 Go Out and Stay Home said, on October 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am

Yea, quite a few communist leaders say they’d vote for him too.

# 28 sargasso said, on October 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am

Powell was a good general, his political instinct however is even better.

# 29 Jägermeister said, on October 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am

#27 – Go Out and Stay Home – Yea, quite a few communist leaders say they’d vote for him too.

I guess the world is full of communists…

# 30 MikeN said, on October 19th, 2008 at 11:38 am

I thought Colin Powell was one of the evil neo-cons? Now these same people like his endorsement?

By the way bobbo, would you vote for Powell for President to stick it to those racists?

I still say regardless of what Powell has to say now, his UN presentation was valid.

# 31 doug said, on October 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am

#23. Never. but you don’t compare someone to Abraham Lincoln if you are just giving them the “oh, he’s from my town, so I better endorse him” endorsement:

“It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation’s most powerful office, he will prove it wasn’t so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama’s name to Lincoln’s in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.”

http://tinyurl.com/5tycnf

# 32 LibertyLover said, on October 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am

#29, The world said the same thing about Ron Paul.

# 33 doug said, on October 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am

#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.

# 34 chuck said, on October 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am

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.

# 35 Jägermeister said, on October 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am

#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.

# 36 contempt said, on October 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

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.

# 37 Jägermeister said, on October 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

#36 – contempt – …the conflict now wouldn’t even be necessary.

Why the heck was Bush Jr’s invasion necessary?

# 38 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on October 19th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

#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…

# 39 contempt said, on October 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

#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.

# 40 contempt said, on October 19th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

#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.

# 41 Jägermeister said, on October 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

#39 – contempt

Do you really believe in what you just wrote?

# 42 doug said, on October 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

#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.

# 43 QB said, on October 19th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

#39 & 40 contempt

Even from 2000 miles away, people are laughing their guts out.

# 44 aslightlycrankygeek said, on October 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

#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.

# 45 contempt said, on October 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

#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.

# 46 doug said, on October 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

#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.

# 47 Jägermeister said, on October 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

#45 – contempt – Unless you can prove otherwise.

If someone claims there are unicorns in Utah… is it your duty to prove them wrong?

# 48 Jägermeister said, on October 19th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

#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?

# 49 Flip Wilson said, on October 19th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

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.

# 50 bobbo said, on October 19th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

#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.

# 51 contempt said, on October 19th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

#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.

# 52 QB said, on October 19th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

contempt, you’re so cute – in a dumb kind of way.

# 53 R.O.P. said, on October 19th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

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?

# 54 bobbo said, on October 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

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.

# 55 Special Ed said, on October 19th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

http://tinyurl.com/6yljqc

# 56 contempt said, on October 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

#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.

# 57 bobbo said, on October 19th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

#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.

# 58 Jägermeister said, on October 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

#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.

# 59 Hugh Ripper said, on October 19th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

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.

# 60 R.O.P. said, on October 19th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

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.

# 61 contempt said, on October 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

#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?

# 62 Selvy said, on October 19th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

#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?

# 63 Mr. Fusion said, on October 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Contempt,

Say it all you like, it won’t change the truth. Bush knew Iraq had removed and / or destroyed all its WMDs after Gulf I. Other Intelligence agencies knew that, including the CIA, MI6, the Russians, Germans, French, and Chinese. What is not understood is why Tony Blair went along with Bush to invade Iraq.

The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Contempt the Clown.

Paraphrasing Carl Sagan.

# 64 Mr. Fusion said, on October 19th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

#61, Contempt,

#60 ROP

What did Paddy-O say that needs defending?

Just about everything.

# 65 bobbo said, on October 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

#61–contempt==there many examples of “just” wars, or good wars, or wars that advance legitimate goals. WW2 probably being one of the best examples. It does become much more difficult to justify wars of choice that one initiates–so many other better choices available.

Sad we once were so powerful we could act alone. It rapidly developed from there that no one would act with us. Coalition building has drawbacks, but lots of positives too.

# 66 Hugh Ripper said, on October 19th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

#62 Selvy

Just how far right are you? Describing Obama as being ‘far left’ is laughable. Lenin was far left. Mao was far left. Obama is in league with these guys? I hope your checking for commies under your bed before you sleep.

# 67 doug said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

#62. sorry, but if you can harry and interfere with the inspectors – if they are absolutely useless, as you suppose – you don’t NEED to send the WMD to Syria. In fact, it is more dangerous, since once they are on the move, they can be spotted by US surveillance satellites and aircraft. so no logic points there.

not to mention the fact that, like the existence of WMD in the first place, there’s simply no proof. The Bush administration had every incentive to prove your scenario, but they have not.

“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.”

um, given that we were going to establish a democracy in Iraq, and that most of the population of Iraq were Shiites, whose leaders were very friendly to Iran, to not have predicted this is just retarded.

sorry, but it is.

here is the magical thinking that was involved: “We will free the Shiites and they will be SO grateful that they will hate the people we hate, i.e. Iran.” even though the Iranians are their co-religionists who sheltered their leaders during Saddam’s reign and didn’t sell them out when the US did.

that’s just stupid. this is not a matter of execution, as you suggest, this is the entire concept. Iraq without a Sunni tyrant is going to be friendly to Iran.

Saddam was very useful to the US (as he was during the Iran-Iraq War), if the US was interested in containing Iran, which apparently we were not. Under Reagan (remember that pic of Rummy with Saddam? right around the time he was gassing the Kurds, about which we said nada?) and Bush I we were, but not under the neocons.

“How can he cite Palin’s inexperience as a factor and then support Obama? Obama is running for president, Palin isn’t.”

the primary qualification of a VP is to be able to step in as Prez at a moment’s notice. anyone who watched Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric should have felt mortal terror at the prospect of her becoming POTUS. Obama may be inexperienced, but he is goddamn smart, that’s for sure. Palin is the second coming of Dan Quayle.

# 68 Chris Mac said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

#64 – “Just about everything.” or “Just about, everything.”

# 69 Thinker said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Colin Powel for Prez! I dont care what party!

# 70 Mr. Fusion said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

#62, Selvy

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.

And would you have any citations to back that up?

# 71 QB said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Jager, I liked the “fixing Daddy’s mistake” allusion. The neo-cons just had to get it off their chest, didn’t they?

contempt, get over the silly arguments – if they hadn’t used the WMD argument they would have used something else. The Bush coalition was about everyone getting what they wanted:

Evangelicals: got their supreme court
Neo-cons: got an army to play with
The privileged rich: got free government money

Principled conservatives (and there aren’t too many left) are sick about the Republican party and George Bush and are appalled at the idea of nation building or pushing democracy at the point of a gun. They can only hope that 30 years or semi-Republican rule have pushed the US to the right enough to make them happy.

It’s up to Obama to bring a new vision of America that will draw people back. Aging liberals like Pelosi and Reid have to go and make way for a new generation. Kennedy understood that, you’d think the rest would “get it” too.

# 72 Greg Allen said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

> Mr. Fusion said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
>>>> #62, Selvy
>>>> 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.
> And would you have any citations to back that up?

Sean Hannity
Rush Limbaugh
Fox News
and, amazingly, the
New York Times!

# 73 Greg Allen said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

There aren’t many in the Bush Administration that I feel sorry for but Colin Powell may be one.

It sure seems like the Bushies used and ruined him, knowing damn well what they were doing.

# 74 doug said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

#72. “and, amazingly, the
New York Times!”

Judy Miller – Ms. Credulous, 2003.

For a supposedly liberal propaganda organ, the NYT sure pimped the Bushies’ war. and (more recently) gave above-the-fold, page one coverage to Ayers.

but pay that no nevermind – because the paper looks into Cindy McCain’s history with Sen. McNasty, the NYT is in the Dems’ pocket …

# 75 Greg Allen said, on October 19th, 2008 at 7:26 pm

>> doug said, on October 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
>> For a supposedly liberal propaganda organ, the NYT sure pimped the Bushies’ war. and (more recently) gave above-the-fold, page one coverage to Ayers.

And it wasn’t just the NYT’s — virtually all of the media was essentially a stenographer for Whitehouse.

Even so, you still hear conservatives complain about the “far left MSM”

It’s quite a detachment from reality.

# 76 Rick Cain said, on October 19th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

McCain got an endorsement from a hispanic soap opera star. Sure that’s not Colin Powell but he will take it.

# 77 deowll said, on October 19th, 2008 at 10:12 pm

There are a lot of excellent reasons for voting the Republicans out of office.

On the other hand the national Democratic Party has become the American Socialist Party.

Fanny May and Freddy Mac ended up in the ditch in large part because they wanted them to make loans to people that were bad loan risks.

They want to redistribute the wealth.

They feel that taxing industry is the way to go even though it is regressive in that it causes business failures and makes American businesses less competitive in a world market drying up jobs.

They don’t have much of track record of balancing the budget.

They like to spend and aren’t afraid to borrow the money as long as they can sell government bonds.

Many of them are anti Christian or militant atheists who are oddly somewhat pro Islam. A faith not much noted in recent years for tolerating any belief system other than its own.

I think the pro Socialist voters are going to get what they want and if you like the values above you may be happy.

If not, you have problems.

# 78 John C Dvorak said, on October 19th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Despite the good numbers for this blog, I’ll be glad when the election is over.

# 79 GF said, on October 19th, 2008 at 11:39 pm

The fact that Powell thinks McCain is more to the right of Bush makes me wonder about his judgment. I guess he thinks less torture and shutting down Gitmo is worse than Bush, WiTF. As for questioning Palin’s experience maybe he should be looking at Obama’s experience too. I just wonder how much Obama paid him.

As for being a great general, BS, he derailed Bush #1 into not finishing the Iraq problem the first time.

# 80 John said, on October 20th, 2008 at 1:54 am

Powell, a “professing” republican appointed by Bush, is now in bed with Obama – Has he done his homework or is he racist? By homework I mean this: Obama will not produce his birth certificate in the Berg vs. Obama lawsuit – proving he is not qualified to become President. He also will not release his college or medical records, that probably have other incriminating evidence against him. He buddies with racist pastors, terrorists, and has a blatant socialist agenda – not what America is all about and what it was founded upon. Obama lies (google 155 Obama lies), has brought NO legislation as Senator, has NOT united republicans and democrats, and is so radical, he would not support assisting babies medically who survive an abortion holocaust. I am perplexed how people are drawn to the man’s fluff and theatrics, but seem to care less about what he is, what he stands for, and what is behind his facade. The new movie: HYPE should be seen by every American before this election.

# 81 pedro said, on October 20th, 2008 at 2:03 am

#78 Me too. A bit off topic but I have to take it off my chest (is along the lines of being tired of something): WTF was Sean Penn doing in Venezuela again this sunday?

# 82 Dallas said, on October 20th, 2008 at 2:54 am

#78 John, I enjoy your election blogs. It’s a study of the republican voter mind. It’s like animal planet – fascinating.

When the elections are over, December will start the usual 4 year effort (hopefully to have Obama impeached. My guess it will not be as much fun or entertaining.

# 83 Future Historian said, on October 20th, 2008 at 4:28 am

Nov 5, 2008

Obama 41%
McCain 39%
Barr 9%
Other 11%

As neither candidate had the required 50%+ number of votes, the House of Representatives had to immediately vote on which of the three top contenders would be president. “Immediately” ended up being three weeks while speeches were made, deals were brokered, lawsuits filed, lawsuits dismissed, etc. In the end, Obama became President.

However, the Democratic party did not rejoice. And neither did the Republican party. Both lost over 3/4 of the seats open to election to various third party candidates in the Senate and House. This left neither party with a majority.

Obama, feeling the heat from the economy meltdown which started anew Nov 5th, was unable to get a single government program brought to his desk for signing into law.

After eight months of both the Democrats and Republicans fighting each other, they decided to take out their frustrations on the, recently named, Independents. However, every Independent was living up their campaign promises — no new taxes, no new spending. The press sided with both of the former major parties however the voters continued to support the Independents. When the new budget was up for debate, the government had no choice but to reduce over 30% of all government spending — an ironic amount as that was also about how much the dollar had dropped on the world-wide markets. By this time, the Fed had lost all control of their monetary policy and the Treasury took back that control out of desperation. It was too little, too late.

The elections of 2010 were the final nail in the coffin for the Democrats and Republicans. The voters saw the mess they brought the country to by refusing the cooperate with the Independents. Every Democrat and Republican up for re-election, save two, were elected out of office and replaced with other Independents.

By now, it is apparent the nation is turning its back on the former major parties. In a last act of defiance, they combine their platforms and form a single party. The infighting persists to this day.

Obama, wanting to be re-elected in 2012 switches parties to the Independents. The former Democrats call him a traitor and the former Republicans, a snake-oil salesman.

# 84 Mr. Fusion said, on October 20th, 2008 at 5:14 am

#77, deowll,

On the other hand the national Democratic Party has become the American Socialist Party.

Nope. That name is already taken by a far leftest party.

Fanny May and Freddy Mac ended up in the ditch in large part because they wanted them to make loans to people that were bad loan risks.

Wrong. That is the current line from the Republicans trying to pin the blame on Clinton. The two mortgage giants got into trouble by buying “toxic” mortgages from less than scrupulous brokers. They were making money by flipping these “securities” back and forth. As long as the foreclosure rate remained at a certain level they could leverage these loans over 100 times. Only when Bush’s economy started tanking and people couldn’t afford to pay their mortgages in certain areas, did they run into trouble.

They want to redistribute the wealth.

They were redistributing the wealth to themselves. The bonuses available were enough incentive to ignore any regulation or prudence.

They feel that taxing industry is the way to go even though it is regressive in that it causes business failures and makes American businesses less competitive in a world market drying up jobs.

As contrasted to reality where companies get taxed at a lower rate for profits earned by foreign subsidiaries even if those subsidiaries made their money selling products made elsewhere in the US.

They like to spend and aren’t afraid to borrow the money as long as they can sell government bonds.

Uumm, I think you have the Republicans confused with the Democrats. The last Democrat left office with a budget surplus. The Republican Congress and President have since increased our National Debt by 65% to over $10 TRILLION.

Many of them are anti Christian or militant atheists

Maybe the best reason NOT to vote Republican.

… who are oddly somewhat pro Islam.

Ya right. Good line but just more neo-con bullshit.

I think the pro Socialist voters are going to get what they want and if you like the values above you may be happy.

So is this all your neo-con masters have told you?

# 85 grog said, on October 20th, 2008 at 5:25 am

…and if powell had endorsed mccain, every single conservative on this list would be crowing about what a great and eloquent warrior gen. colin powell is.

it shows that conservatives will turn on their own kind the send one break ranks.

notice that conservatives never say anything good about themselves, the only say bad things about people who disagree with or even question conservativism

i don’t think conservatives like themselves very much.

# 86 LibertyLover said, on October 20th, 2008 at 5:26 am

Fanny May and Freddy Mac ended up in the ditch in large part because they wanted them to make loans to people that were bad loan risks.

http://tinyurl.com/6drazb

It seems Freddie Mac had a strong hand in killing any new regulation.

And this is something the msm is picking up, amazingly enough.

# 87 QB said, on October 20th, 2008 at 5:28 am

# 78 John C Dvorak said:

“Despite the good numbers for this blog, I’ll be glad when the election is over.”

Already? The primaries only started two years ago.

# 88 Mr. Fusion said, on October 20th, 2008 at 5:54 am

#80, John,

Obama will not produce his birth certificate in the Berg vs. Obama lawsuit

So what is your point? First, Obama’s records are available in Honolulu. Second, he is under NO compulsion to present any evidence at this point. That is Berg’s responsibility. If it hasn’t been tossed yet, it will soon be tossed by the Judge as Berg has no standing to challenge Obama at this time.

He also will not release his college or medical records, that probably have other incriminating evidence against him.

Obama has released his medical records. Because of his age and good health, they are fairly spartan. When McCain released his medical records, he only allowed selected journalists a couple of hours to look them over. No copies, no pictures, no medical personnel. What does McCain have to hide?

Again, if you want to prove something, innuendo is not proof. Are you upset because Obama was in the top 10% of his class while McCain was in the bottom 2%?

He buddies with racist pastors, terrorists, and has a blatant socialist agenda

Could you tell us what statements Obama’s pastor made that were untrue and racist? Which of his close buddies are terrorists? What is his “socialist” agenda. Please be specific. Then explain how McCain’s election team includes so many lobbyists for foreign countries, including Saddam’s Iraq, Georgia, and China? Explain how McCain’s Election Campaign Chairman was a paid lobbyist for Fannie Mae and his Economic adviser was the same guy who wrote the law allowing Enron to fail and the economic collapse to happen?

… not what America is all about and what it was founded upon.

And YOU know what America was founded upon and is all about?

Obama lies (google 155 Obama lies), has brought NO legislation as Senator, has NOT united republicans and democrats, and is so radical, he would not support assisting babies medically who survive an abortion holocaust.

Obama lies? Hey, good one. So instead of calling Obama on a lie, you direct us to do your work for you. As for assisting babies who survive an abortion holocaust? There is already legislation on the books that require medical personnel to assist the baby. HOWEVER, to date there is no record of any baby surviving simply because a fetus aborted at that stage of development would be unable to live on its own. This argument is simply a red herring thrown out by ignorant anti-choice types.

I am perplexed how people are drawn to the man’s fluff and theatrics, but seem to care less about what he is,

Simply because he is not fluff. Nor is he as bad as you have suggested. Look through the neo-con lies and you will see an intelligent, charismatic leader.

The new movie: HYPE should be seen by every American before this election.

So every American should go out of their way to watch a Republican propaganda smear video.

Geeze, get a life John.

# 89 Flip Wilson said, on October 20th, 2008 at 6:09 am

Hasn’t anybody noticed that Joe the Plumber has given more press conferences in the five days that he’s been on the ticket than Palin has given in the two months she’s been McCain’s playmate?

# 90 Mr. Fusion said, on October 20th, 2008 at 6:16 am

#86, Loser,

That legislation was opposed by Democrats because it would have moved oversight from the FED to Treasury.

From your link,

Democrats did not like the harshest provision, which would have given a new regulator a mandate to shrink Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by forcing them to sell off part of their portfolios. That approach, the Democrats feared, would cut into the ability of low- and moderate-income families to buy houses.

That entered politics into the equation as poorer people tend not to vote for Republicans. To date, there has been no evidence that low income families have defaulted at a higher rate than any other income level. Removing their line of credit though would have given even higher amounts of credit to higher income groups at their expense.

# 91 Mr. Fusion said, on October 20th, 2008 at 6:17 am

#89, Flip,

Joe the Plumber gave more live interviews on the day after the debate than Palin has since she joined the ticket.

# 92 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on October 20th, 2008 at 6:20 am

Powell talked about this over the weekend: For those of you who think Obama is socialist, you need pay attention to reality. The entire idea of taxation is to redistribute wealth so we can have roads and schools and cops and military protection. Maybe you prefer anarchy and true survival of the fittest? We could end taxation and wind up in the stone age again, if that’s what you prefer… But I suppose you don’t, that this socialist nonsense is just a buzzword put out by Limbaugh, Hannity, and the other haters like them. Speaking of that, dis Powell rip Michele Bachman a new one, or what? Quite deserving, too.

If you really think Obama is taking us in a socialist direction, what do you make of the moves GWB has made with executive powers, completely bypassing congress? You just know the hot-headed McCain would love to do that sort of mavericky thing, right?

There’s a reason we have three branches of government, and GWB reminded us that each is important.

# 93 jccalhoun said, on October 20th, 2008 at 6:54 am

Over on the green football they have all decided that even though Powell gave several reasons for supporting Obama none of those matter and he’s a racist and only supporting Obama because he’s black. So according to their logic if you support someone I don’t like it is because you are a racist? Hmmm…. I wonder what that says about those calling Powell racist?

# 94 LibertyLover said, on October 20th, 2008 at 7:13 am

#90, You proved my point. Thanks.

# 95 grog said, on October 20th, 2008 at 7:16 am

meanwhile, back on the thread about colin powell…

conservatives are having a tough time changing the subject.

attempts to steer the conversation toward senator obama’s gift certificate are predictably pathetic.

attempts to waylay discussion of general powell’s political acumen and judgment by bringing up freddie mac and fannie mae are as transparent as celophane.

conservatives are going to have work harder to dish out dirt, because they have nothing positive to say about themselves. their tired tricks of changing the subject when painted into a corner are too well-known at this point to have any impact.

# 96 Paddy-O said, on October 20th, 2008 at 7:16 am

#60 “I like how contempt didn’t try to defend Paddy-O Furniture. ”

What ARE you babbling about? What institution let you loose?

# 97 grog said, on October 20th, 2008 at 7:19 am

on a related note…

joe the plumber has nothing to do with general powell.

more on this story as conservatives writhe in agony, desperate to find any kind of mud that will stick to the obama juggernaut, having long since gave up on finding anything positive to say about john mccain or sarah palin.

# 98 grog said, on October 20th, 2008 at 7:26 am

c’mon paddy, et al,

tell me how colin powell is a soy-latte-sipping-liberal-pinko-commie, just like everyone who supports obama.

tell me how he lacks integrity.

tell me how he’s soft on crime, terrorism, etc.

tell me how his military experience is overrated and unimportant.

tell me how both bushes were wrong about him.

tell me how his eloquence is actually a bad thing.

come on, that’s what you conservatives do — tear down anyone who opposes you.

man, you guys are so predictable, no wonder your guy is losing.

# 99 Howard said, on October 20th, 2008 at 7:28 am

Powell’s endorsement of Obama does not verify Obama’s judgement, but rather brings Powell’s judgement into question. Powell says that Obama is ready to lead … WHY? … Regardless of Powell’s last minute endorsement, Obama is still the most liberal senator in congress … who accomplished nothing in his meager 3 years in office, except voting present 160 times, and campaigning for President, as well as associating with anti-American racists and domestic terrorists … giving good speeches … and, taking America down the road to socialism. I used to respect Colin Powell … but, now that’s history!!!

# 100 MikeN said, on October 20th, 2008 at 10:05 am

Bobbo, you’ve said that you support Obama based on race, to stick it to the racists. SO does the same apply if it were Powell vs Hillary or Edwards or McCain?

# 101 Paddy-O said, on October 20th, 2008 at 10:32 am

#98 Drank too much grog said, “c’mon paddy, et al,

tell me how colin powell is a soy-latte-sipping-liberal-”

Why would I tell you about something I never said or thought?

I guess your new moniker is correct…

# 102 MikeN said, on October 20th, 2008 at 11:13 am

Note to McCain camp, try and counter with an endorsement from Bill Cosby and watch liberals go crazy.

# 103 Paddy-O said, on October 20th, 2008 at 11:17 am

#102 “try and counter with an endorsement from Bill Cosby and watch liberals go crazy.”

Libs already think Cosby is crazy because he says blacks shouldn’t blame others for their own failings…

# 104 GF said, on October 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am

#92 You crack me up. No real American who knows American history would EVER call taxes to build roads spreading the wealth. Spreading the wealth is a term used by socialist, anarchist and communist. Obama might as well say let’s get rid of the Bourgeoisie or merchant class.

And by the way keeping taxes the same as they are now for those below $200,000 is NOT a tax cut for the middle and lower income families, that would be the 1st of many LIES Obama has told.

# 105 Greg Allen said, on October 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I been sort-of feeling sorry for Colin Powell since it seems like he got screwed by the “true believers” Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney.

I was listening to Harry Shearer’s show and he reminded me of Greg Thielmann, the guy who worked at the State Department’s intelligence wing

http://tinyurl.com/67rnrr

This guy was looking at the same intelligence as Colin Powell and he’s on record saying it is bogus.

# 106 Greg Allen said, on October 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

>> GF said, on October 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
>> #92 You crack me up. No real American who knows American history would EVER call taxes to build roads spreading the wealth.

I’m a real American and I’d call all infrastructure a way of spreading wealth.

Since when did conservatives turn against spreading wealth? Old school conservatives used to be all about spreading wealth as far and wide as possible.

But now they seem to be for a select few hoarding wealth. How un-American is that?

# 107 Mr. Fusion said, on October 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

#105, Greg Allen,

This guy was looking at the same intelligence as Colin Powell and he’s on record saying it is bogus.

As I remember, Powell questioned the data and conclusions and was told straight up that the evidence was correct and verified. When he found out later and tried to question Bush about it, he was brushed off by Cheney. That is why he left after his first term.

Being a good soldier though, he kept that to himself. It was his aid who reported it.

# 108 GF said, on October 20th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

#106 Greg Allen
Taxes are taxes and everyone I know would not call it spreading the wealth.

# 109 Paddy-O said, on October 21st, 2008 at 7:06 am

#107 “As I remember, Powell questioned the data and conclusions and was told straight up…”

Correct. He was not allowed to do his job as Head of State Dept.

# 110 TakeItForWhatItIs said, on October 24th, 2008 at 10:11 am

I have lost my respect for Colin Powell. Before he was undermined by the current administration’s Iraq videos of “killer” Ice cream trucks, there was no doubt in my mind that I would vote for this man.

Although, I understand the bitter taste for the Republican Party, he showed the world that he left his dignity at the door. He is endorsing a man that lacks any experience, because of race, over a man who has served in the military and our government for decades, and a man he calls a friend.

Way to go out on a limb Mr. Powell. Back a candidate when he’s in the home stretch with a large lead.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!