Powell Still a Republican, Despite Party Differences

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Clearly where Gen Powell looses all his credibility is with his vote for Obama who was rated as the "Most liberal" senator.... rather than the moderate John McCain.

How can he say the party needs to be more moderate when he himself will not vote for one?

He has. Obama isn't the left wing lunatic that the right made you believe his is. I thought that Powell was quite specific as to why he endorsed and voted for Obama over McCain.

He was. But some here are like the band on the Titanic.

[scandal 951]

He lost his credibility due to the Republican Party's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Remember his UN speech? And being the true soldier, he resigned. He knows his party is in dire straights. He took the hit for the administrations stellar intelligence on the matter. What was the source for weapons of mass destruction, a taxi drivers sisters brothers cousins uncles son? And that started the war.

To set the record straight, his Feb 2003 UN speech and his resignation as Secretary of State were two separate events and not directly correlated.

The UN speech was based on cherry picked intelligence that the Administration (under Cheney's direction) assembled. We now know that behind the scenes State Department staffers argued strongly with the Administration about the contents of the speech. In the end the speech included the infamous "yellowcake uranium" and the aluminum tubes thought to be centrifuges, shown later to be false but claimed in the speech to be incontrovertible. Powell has since stated publicly that he regretted the speech, and sees it as a blot on his record. He is a true man of character.

His resignation happened almost 2 years later, after Bush won reelection in Nov 2004. He had had enough after 1 term and did not want a second term.

On a personal level, the UN speech convinced me. Because it was Powell, whom I trusted. And because the evidence he presented did seem compelling. I believed at that time that Iraq really presented an imminent danger to US interests. Obviously I was wrong, as was much of Congress and America that supported "shock and awe" back in March 2003. The lies and deceit of the Bush administration to sell the war to America do indeed illicit in me a sense of "shock and awe" at the boldfaced audacity of that maneuver.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

He lost his credibility due to the Republican Party's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Remember his UN speech? And being the true soldier, he resigned. He knows his party is in dire straights. He took the hit for the administrations stellar intelligence on the matter. What was the source for weapons of mass destruction, a taxi drivers sisters brothers cousins uncles son? And that started the war.

To set the record straight, his Feb 2003 UN speech and his resignation as Secretary of State were two separate events and not directly correlated.

The UN speech was based on cherry picked intelligence that the Administration (under Cheney's direction) assembled. We now know that behind the scenes State Department staffers argued strongly with the Administration about the contents of the speech. In the end the speech included the infamous "yellowcake uranium" and the aluminum tubes thought to be centrifuges, shown later to be false but claimed in the speech to be incontrovertible. Powell has since stated publicly that he regretted the speech, and sees it as a blot on his record. He is a true man of character.

His resignation happened almost 2 years later, after Bush won reelection in Nov 2004. He had had enough after 1 term and did not want a second term.

On a personal level, the UN speech convinced me. Because it was Powell, whom I trusted. And because the evidence he presented did seem compelling. I believed at that time that Iraq really presented an imminent danger to US interests. Obviously I was wrong, as was much of Congress and America that supported "shock and awe" back in March 2003. The lies and deceit of the Bush administration to sell the war to America do indeed illicit in me a sense of "shock and awe" at the boldfaced audacity of that maneuver.

I too trusted and believed him. I still believe that he was set up to do the dirty work on shoddy intelligence. And I still believe he was a good soldier. He served his Commander in Chief and bowed out respectably after Bush's first term.

[scandal 951]

Clearly where Gen Powell looses all his credibility is with his vote for Obama who was rated as the "Most liberal" senator.... rather than the moderate John McCain.

How can he say the party needs to be more moderate when he himself will not vote for one?

He has. Obama isn't the left wing lunatic that the right made you believe his is. I thought that Powell was quite specific as to why he endorsed and voted for Obama over McCain.

This is from Wikipedia, as a summary of the Meet the press interview with Tim Russert in which Powell announced his reasons for supporting Obama. Note the respect that he holds for his friend John McCain. I respect McCain too - he is an inclusive, moderating figure and would have made a good president. I voted for Obama but would not have been upset had McCain won. ANYTHING was better than Bush/Cheney!

Powell donated the maximum amount to John McCain's campaign in the summer of 2007[53] and in early 2008, his name was listed as a possible running mate for Republican nominee McCain's bid during the 2008 U.S. presidential election.[54] However, on October 19, 2008, Powell announced his endorsement of Barack Obama during a Meet the Press interview, citing "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," in addition to his "style and substance." He additionally referred to Obama as a "transformational figure."[55][56] Powell further questioned McCain's judgment in appointing Sarah Palin as the vice presidential candidate, stating that despite the fact that she is admired, "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." He pointed out how he thought Obama's choice for vice-president, Joe Biden, was ready to be president. He also added that he was "troubled" by the "false intimations that Obama was Muslim." Powell stated that "[Obama] is 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." Powell then referenced Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, a Muslim American soldier in the U.S. Army who served and died in the Iraq War. He later stated, "Over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party has become narrower and narrower [...] I look at these kind of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me."[55][56] Powell concluded his Sunday morning talk show comments, "It isn't easy for me to disappoint Sen. McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that [...] I think we need a transformational figure. I think we need a president who is a generational change and that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama, not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Sen. John McCain."[57] Later in a December 12, 2008 CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria, Powell reiterated his belief that during the last few months of the campaign, Palin pushed the Republican party further to the right and had a polarizing impact on it.[58]

[spookyturtle 9,466]

ANYTHING was better than Bush/Cheney!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Clearly where Gen Powell looses all his credibility is with his vote for Obama who was rated as the "Most liberal" senator.... rather than the moderate John McCain.

How can he say the party needs to be more moderate when he himself will not vote for one?

He lost his credibility due to the Republican Party's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Remember his UN speech? And being the true soldier, he resigned. He knows his party is in dire straights. He took the hit for the administrations stellar intelligence on the matter. What was the source for weapons of mass destruction, a taxi drivers sisters brothers cousins uncles son? And that started the war.

It wasn't just the Republicans who claimed that Iraq had WMD. Several international intelligence agencies and reports since 1980's had concluded that Saddam Hussein not only had produced chemical weapons capable of committing mass murder, but that he had already used mustard and nerve gases to kill sizable populations of Kurds and Iranians between 1983 and 1991, resulting in more than 30,000 fatalities.

In December, 1998, President Clinton (not a Republican) ordered Operation Desert Fox, a series of military strikes withiin Iraq conducted jointly with British troops. In justification, he said that "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors, " and that the mission was inperative due to Hussein's demonstrated willingness to use this technology to attack his own people.

Prior to Clinton's election, President GHW Bush (Bush I), also had launched attacks against Iraq, citing Hussein's aggression across the boundaries of neighboring countries. In Sept, 1992, during the presidential election, Al Gore, running on the Democrat ticket, criticized Papa Bush for not being strident enough against Iraq due to its terrorist ties and developing nuclear weapon program.

Middle Eastern terrorism and Iraq's part in it has been studied and debated for decades. However anyone may feel about Bush's war in Iraq, one can only be honest when one includes the fact that the issue of WMDs in Iraq was a subject of ongoing concern and intelligence gathering since President Reagan was in office. Political history in hindsight is often revisionist and self-serving, but not beneficial for a clear understanding as to what brought us to any given point.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Clearly where Gen Powell looses all his credibility is with his vote for Obama who was rated as the "Most liberal" senator.... rather than the moderate John McCain.

How can he say the party needs to be more moderate when he himself will not vote for one?

He has. Obama isn't the left wing lunatic that the right made you believe his is. I thought that Powell was quite specific as to why he endorsed and voted for Obama over McCain.

He was. But some here are like the band on the Titanic.

I don't believe Powell's reasons for supporting Barry because the values Obama expoused during his campaign fly in the face of what Powell claimed to believe during his time in the political arena. Either Powell was lying to us over the last 2 decades about what he believes, or he is talking out of both sides of his mouth now in an attempt to meld the opposites together. That hasn't worked for me.

Frankly, folks, it's easy to tell that most of you are either too young to remember far enough back to make a connection in the continuity of history, or you weren't paying attention until you decided you didn't like Bush II. Any cursory study of the issue would lead you to know that aggression against Iraq didn't statrt with Bush. There is a long and complex history that is still unfurling between Iraq and the west.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Sofiyya 1,687]

More conveniently forgotten ** history . . . Were all these high-profile ** leaders duped? If so, should you libs trust them now?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Facts tend to kill threads

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

Facts tend to kill threads

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Middle Eastern terrorism and Iraq's part in it has been studied and debated for decades. However anyone may feel about Bush's war in Iraq, one can only be honest when one includes the fact that the issue of WMDs in Iraq was a subject of ongoing concern and intelligence gathering since President Reagan was in office. Political history in hindsight is often revisionist and self-serving, but not beneficial for a clear understanding as to what brought us to any given point.

And yet, no wiggling around will change the fact that all presidents pre W had the wisdom not to march into a country w/o having an explicit exit strategy and none of them would have ever considered doing so without an explicit madate and the backing of the international community.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Middle Eastern terrorism and Iraq's part in it has been studied and debated for decades. However anyone may feel about Bush's war in Iraq, one can only be honest when one includes the fact that the issue of WMDs in Iraq was a subject of ongoing concern and intelligence gathering since President Reagan was in office. Political history in hindsight is often revisionist and self-serving, but not beneficial for a clear understanding as to what brought us to any given point.

And yet, no wiggling around will change the fact that all presidents pre W had the wisdom not to march into a country w/o having an explicit exit strategy and none of them would have ever considered doing so without an explicit madate and the backing of the international community.

You're kidding, right? This is a joke?

Vietnam comes to mind . . .

Edited May 25, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Mogadishu comes to mind.

Also, Obama wants to ramp up the mission in Afghanistan, but has related no exit strategy, so far. He doesn't even have an exit strategy for Gitmo.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Korea comes to mind . . .

[_Simpson_ 250]