PastaJoe Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Retired Gen. Colin Powell, once considered a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), now may endorse his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), according to Republican sources. But an air of mystery surrounds Powell's planned live appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," and no one is sure what he will say. Powell’s unassailable national security credentials could sway voters who are vacillating about whether Obama is ready to be commander in chief, and his endorsement of the Illinois senator would make a national security emphasis by McCain in the election's closing days extremely difficult. Powell, 71, a professional soldier for 35 years, has advised the last three Republican presidents. The general’s camp is being coy about what he might or might not say on Sunday. But some McCain advisers suspect, without being sure, that Powell will endorse Obama. “It’s going to make a lot of news, and certainly be personally embarrassing for McCain," a McCain official said. "It comes at a time when we need momentum, and it would create momentum against us.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14665.html
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Powell’s unassailable national security credentials... Notwithstanding the fact that the left has assailed them repeatedly over the last six years...
scribo Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 This should be good. I suspect the GOP is hedging its bets right now. Either it steals some of his thunder by setting up the expectation that Obama gets the endorsement thus lessing the sting by making less of a surprise or they make it that much of a bigger deal if he endorses McCain.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Notwithstanding the fact that the left has assailed them repeatedly over the last six years... I think the large majority of the left that follows politics closely thinks that Powell's loyalty and his military background* was taken advantage of by the Bush administration, and that Powell himself didn't have the same policies and wouldn't make the same military decisions as Bush et al. Not all of the left, of course, but a huge amount if not most. *By military background I mean that a lot of people think that because he spent his life in the military, he (rightfully so) had a chain of command mentality, and when his Commander in Chief and Secretary of Defense was giving him orders he was more likely to follow them dutifully than to question or fight back hard against them even though his own views were vastly difficult, if not opposite.
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 I think the large majority of the left that follows politics closely thinks that Powell's loyalty and his military background* was taken advantage of by the Bush administration, and that Powell himself didn't have the same policies and wouldn't make the same military decisions as Bush et al. Not all of the left, of course, but a huge amount if not most. *By military background I mean that a lot of people think that because he spent his life in the military, he (rightfully so) had a chain of command mentality, and when his Commander in Chief and Secretary of Defense was giving him orders he was more likely to follow them dutifully than to question or fight back hard against them even though his own views were vastly difficult, if not opposite. I would not dispute that (well...most of it). But I've also said it before...the extremists are framing the debate. Not the entire right thinks Obama is a terrorist, either...but the left continues to act as though they do. I would hasten to add, too, that PastaJoe is one of those rabid extremists, and to the best of my recollection is one of the ones that has questioned Powell's national security credentials, so my point was not so much about the hypocrisy of the left as much as the hypocrisy of PastaJoe's left. The part I would dispute is the reference to the Secretary of Defense, for a variety of reasons that would bore the living sh-- out of you if I expressed them. Suffice to say that I believe you overestimate the degree to which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and/or Secretary of State need be deferential to the Secretary of Defense.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 The part I would dispute is the reference to the Secretary of Defense, for a variety of reasons that would bore the living sh-- out of you if I expressed them. Suffice to say that I believe you overestimate the degree to which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and/or Secretary of State need be deferential to the Secretary of Defense. no argument, but given the personalities and extreme hawkish environment at the time, Powell was outgunned and overruled time and time again.
PastaJoe Posted October 17, 2008 Author Posted October 17, 2008 I would not dispute that (well...most of it). But I've also said it before...the extremists are framing the debate. Not the entire right thinks Obama is a terrorist, either...but the left continues to act as though they do. I would hasten to add, too, that PastaJoe is one of those rabid extremists, and to the best of my recollection is one of the ones that has questioned Powell's national security credentials, so my point was not so much about the hypocrisy of the left as much as the hypocrisy of PastaJoe's left. I'm a rabid extremist? I've never questioned Powell's credentials. If anything, I questioned his decision to not speak up more or resign when he realized he was being used by Bush/Cheney to push the Iraq war, instead of waiting for the end of the 1st term.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 The part I would dispute is the reference to the Secretary of Defense, for a variety of reasons that would bore the living sh-- out of you if I expressed them. Suffice to say that I believe you overestimate the degree to which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and/or Secretary of State need be deferential to the Secretary of Defense. Technically, of course. It seems to me though that Rumsfeld was saying all kinds of things and making all kinds of decisions and Bush was soon enough just rubber stamping it. And then Powell, even though he had intense arguments with Rumsfeld behind the scenes, would then follow Bush's decisions/orders. So, in effect, he was following Rumsfeld. You are correct, I would assume, that officially the Sec of State or Joint Chiefs wouldn't have to follow orders by the Sec of Defense.
Boomer860 Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Retired Gen. Colin Powell, once considered a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), now may endorse his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), according to Republican sources. But an air of mystery surrounds Powell's planned live appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," and no one is sure what he will say. Powell’s unassailable national security credentials could sway voters who are vacillating about whether Obama is ready to be commander in chief, and his endorsement of the Illinois senator would make a national security emphasis by McCain in the election's closing days extremely difficult. Powell, 71, a professional soldier for 35 years, has advised the last three Republican presidents. The general’s camp is being coy about what he might or might not say on Sunday. But some McCain advisers suspect, without being sure, that Powell will endorse Obama. “It’s going to make a lot of news, and certainly be personally embarrassing for McCain," a McCain official said. "It comes at a time when we need momentum, and it would create momentum against us.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14665.html Why wouldnt he endorse Obama ,he is black ,This contest is all about race . The news media wants Obama because he will give them all the good news like total turmoil.The media doesnt care its al about money.
Boomer860 Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 no argument, but given the personalities and extreme hawkish environment at the time, Powell was outgunned and overruled time and time again. Powell was the hawkish one .The Secretary of Defense wanted to run the war on a shoe string .Once the war began Powell advised to go into it with many more troops than they did , as did all the Generals all except the Secretary of Defense. Instead of showing the President military victories he was showing him how frugal he was. Rumsfeld was a bum. History shows you can not win a protaced war.
PastaJoe Posted October 17, 2008 Author Posted October 17, 2008 Why wouldnt he endorse Obama ,he is black ,This contest is all about race . The news media wants Obama because he will give them all the good news like total turmoil.The media doesnt care its al about money. Barack HUSSAIN Obama is black?! OMG, I thought he was Arab! Listening to the McCain/Palin rallies is so confusing.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Powell was the hawkish one .The Secretary of Defense wanted to run the war on a shoe string .Once the war began Powell advised to go into it with many more troops than they did , as did all the Generals all except the Secretary of Defense. Instead of showing the President military victories he was showing him how frugal he was. Rumsfeld was a bum. History shows you can not win a protaced war. You are correct in that, once the war plans were put into motion, Powell (amongst many others) wanted more troops than Rumsfeld. But Powell was the voice of reason against Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and others hell bent on regime changes and force fitting American-backed governments around the world, and most of the time he was outvoted by the neocons.
Recommended Posts