Merged Colin Powell to endorse Obama on Meet the Press?

[Cicero]

My, my. Powell got over the republican bongwater, and now look at how they treat their former hero.

For simply telling the truth, Powell is to be vilified, falsely accused, dragged through the mud, and probably worse by election time.

And why? Because he dared to speak his concience on this election.

As far as I'm concerned, the Powell bashers need to consider their own perfidy. (That goes for both sides of them)

Powell a Republican hero? Since when? He advised Bush 41 that Schwarzkopf should not finish off the Iraqi Army back in 1991 purely for political reasons. Was Powell lying to the U.N. and the media about WOMD's in 2003, or is he lying about his reasons for supporting Obama now?

As late as June 2003, Powell was still clinging to the invisible evidance he sold to the U.N.

QUESTION: Secretary Powell, this morning on Fox News, you've defended
the intelligence and the presentation you made before the United
Nations.

SECRETARY POWELL: Right.

QUESTION: Critics are saying that the intelligence, so far, has been
bogus. How would you answer those critics?

SECRETARY POWELL: I would tell those critics that it is nonsense, it
is not bogus, and there can be no question that Iraq had and has had
weapons of mass destruction. And now that we are sending in a
1,300-man team, I am sure we will be uncovering more of that
capability.

You have to remember that in my presentation on the 5th of February, I
also made the point that they had one of the best deception and --
deception and hiding efforts known, and that is what we are going to
have to go and look at. And I think all the documents that are now
coming forward, the people who are being interviewed, will tell us
more about what they have hidden and where they have hidden it.
And I think the mobile labs are what I think is a good indication of
the kind of thing they are doing. If those mobile biological weapons
vans that we discovered were not biological weapons vans, if they
were, as some suggest, nothing more than a device to produce hydrogen
gas for weather balloons, I can assure you that the day after my
presentation the Iraqis would have had that van out there producing
hydrogen gas for a weather balloon.

They had never acknowledged that they had it. They lied about it. And
we found it. And the Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. Tenet, is
confident that it is what we said it was: a biological warfare van.
And so that tells you the nature of this regime. This regime could
have come clean. This regime could have destroyed its weapons of mass
destruction. It chose not to. And the United Nations and a willing
coalition of nations acted appropriately in accordance with
international law derived from UN Resolution 1441.

We took the regime out, the world is better off for it, and the Iraqi people have been liberated. There will be no weapons of mass destruction once we get through in Iraq with --

QUESTION: How can you assure the American people that the intelligence
that you were using is credible, that it's not bogus?

SECRETARY POWELL: The American people are quite assured. It is the
media that invents words such as "bogus."

Now Powell endorses a candidate that never thought removing Saddam from power was a good idea or even a legitimate pursuit for the U.S. Powell may beleive that this endorsement will redeem his failed Secretary of State tenure, but it will only do so in the liberal community where chameleons are on their endangered species list.

 

[Uzzy]

Powell a Republican hero? Since when? He advised Bush 41 that Schwarzkopf should not finish off the Iraqi Army back in 1991 purely for political reasons. Was Powell lying to the U.N. and the media about WOMD's in 2003, or is he lying about his reasons for supporting Obama now?

Yawn. Here we go again.

Firstly, most in the Bush administration didn't want to go in and finish the job. Someone quite high up said this.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

That was Dick Cheney in 1992. How times change. Source.

Further, the UN mandate that held the coalition forces together did not allow for the occupation of Iraq and/or the overthrow of Saddam Hussain. What do you suggest, that the US break international law and violate a UN mandate whenever they feel like it?

As late as June 2003, Powell was still clinging to the invisible evidance he sold to the U.N.

As late as June 2003? You do remember that Bush declared major combat operations over in May 2003? So he was still defending the evidence he was PRESENTED with by the CIA a month after the end of the war. Big surprise.

Only later, when a more detailed picture occur, did Powell (and the world) learn just how flimsy the intelligence was.

 

[Cicero]

Further, the UN mandate that held the coalition forces together did not allow for the occupation of Iraq and/or the overthrow of Saddam Hussain. What do you suggest, that the US break international law and violate a UN mandate whenever they feel like it?

The coalition was in no danger of collapsing had Schwartzkopf been allowed to take another 48 hours to go to Baghdad and remove Saddam from power. U.S. violate UN mandates? Perish the thought. Only Saddam could get away with that. International Law? So after Saddam was toppled, Geneva/Oslow would demand he be put back in power? Sure.

How does Powell retreat from his position of regime change in Iraq, even if he was Milquetoast on invading Iraq? How does he reconcile supporting a candidate that believes Saddam was fine where he was?

 

[leftysergeant]

How does he reconcile supporting a candidate that believes Saddam was fine where he was?

Probably from military history which he clearly understands than does a certain dim-witted former airplane driver. Google "Dunkirk," "Seelowe" and "Barbarosa."

 

[Uzzy]

The coalition was in no danger of collapsing had Schwartzkopf been allowed to take another 48 hours to go to Baghdad and remove Saddam from power. U.S. violate UN mandates? Perish the thought. Only Saddam could get away with that. International Law? So after Saddam was toppled, Geneva/Oslow would demand he be put back in power? Sure.

Which is why only US, UK and French national forces crossed the border into Iraq. Most of the rest of the coalition stood down.

Removing Saddam would have been a good thing, yes, but illegal and in violating of UN mandates. You mention that only Saddam is able to get away with it, but you're forgetting one key issue.

Moral force. If the US went around breaking UN mandates whenever they decided it was convenient, what right would they have to tell other nations that they shouldn't break UN mandates. Countries like Iran, North Korea etc.

By the way, I don't see Powell changing his mind on removing Saddam. Saddam was a tyrant and the world is better off without him. However, I see him regretting that the intelligence he was given to take to the UN turned out to be faulty. I see him being highly frustrated by the failings of the US after the war in winning the peace. But feel free to put words in his mouth.

 

[Cicero]

Probably from military history. Google "Dunkirk," "Seelowe" and "Barbarosa."

You forgot Dieppe. You equate The Iraq War to these military defeats? Not to mention you equate the U.S.'s military incursion into Iraq with Nazi Germany into Russia. Wow! But since when is Obama a military historian?

 

[leftysergeant]

By the way, I don't see Powell changing his mind on removing Saddam. Saddam was a tyrant and the world is better off without him. However, I see him regretting that the intelligence he was given to take to the UN turned out to be faulty. I see him being highly frustrated by the failings of the US after the war in winning the peace. But feel free to put words in his mouth.

Remooving him on BS evidence is damaging to our moral authority. Kind of like a lynching, rather than an arrest and trial and execution, in that order. I can see why a black guy might find that offensive.

How quick are other countries now to get on board with us against Iran?

 

[Cicero]

Which is why only US, UK and French national forces crossed the border into Iraq. Most of the rest of the coalition stood down.

Removing Saddam would have been a good thing, yes, but illegal and in violating of UN mandates. You mention that only Saddam is able to get away with it, but you're forgetting one key issue.

Moral force. If the US went around breaking UN mandates whenever they decided it was convenient, what right would they have to tell other nations that they shouldn't break UN mandates. Countries like Iran, North Korea etc.

By the way, I don't see Powell changing his mind on removing Saddam. Saddam was a tyrant and the world is better off without him. However, I see him regretting that the intelligence he was given to take to the UN turned out to be faulty. I see him being highly frustrated by the failings of the US after the war in winning the peace. But feel free to put words in his mouth.

It is illegal for the U.S. to use their Browning Ma Deuces on anything other than armored vehicles and aircraft. Yet they do. Don't see the U.S. jammed into Geneva courtrooms defending the use of this weapon.

You place way more importance on the U.N. than it deserves. We all regret the faulty info about WOMD's. But that is not how Powell supporters characterize his part in the U.N. presentation since he left the administration.

 

[Uzzy]

Remooving him on BS evidence is damaging to our moral authority. Kind of like a lynching, rather than an arrest and trial and execution, in that order. I can see why a black guy might find that offensive.

How quick are other countries now to get on board with us against Iran?

Indeed. An argument could have been made for removing Saddam on humanitarian grounds (He's an horrible tyrant who abuses his own people), but that runs into lots of problems. Not least the problem of not going in and removing every horrible tyrant.

And yes. It has weakened America's international standing, lessening the ability of the US to deal with actual difficulties, like Iran.

 

[SezMe]

Now Powell endorses a candidate that never thought removing Saddam from power was a good idea or even a legitimate pursuit for the U.S.

There's your problem, Cicero. I don't think Obama ever thought that removing Saddam from power was a bad idea, he just thought that the invasion of the country was the wrong means to achieve that end. Big difference.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There's your problem, Cicero. I don't think Obama ever thought that removing Saddam from power was a bad idea, he just thought that the invasion of the country was the wrong means to achieve that end. Big difference.

As easily as Saddam fell from power I doubt just talking him into stepping down would have worked. He was quite adamant about remaining in power despite the then "threat" of war/invasion... Can't say in hindsight I agree with us going in there, given we had other priorities at the time... I'm sure you're already aware of what we were already doing without me having to say anything...

Either way... Powell's endorsement doesn't change my vote... life moves on...

 

[Dr Adequate]

Powell a Republican hero? Since when?

"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

 

[Cuddles]

I've just split out most of this thread. If it goes off topic again, it will just be closed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[a_unique_person]

Lieberman is going to be so jealous he didn't get the coverage Powell did.

 

[gdnp]

Yeah, her and Alan Keyes have a press conference scheduled.

They are holding off until they can fit it in with Clarence Thomas's schedule. He doesn't want to be left out.

 

[Oliver]

George Will, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, and other members of the conservative establishment, agree with XenonII that Powell's endorsement was race-based:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/limbaugh-george-will-powe_n_135968.html

I wonder how they feel about white conservatives who have turned around and endorsed Obama. Hell, George Will practically endorsed him himself.

Rush repeated his point about Powell:


Is he a racist?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Powell, was not he the guy who endorsed War in Iraq in first place?
Now, how it comes that Obama promises him a place in the administration?
So, what is the difference between Obama and McCain?