Powell endorses Obama as 'transformational'

While it may not have any real lasting change in terms of demographic shifts (although it will help w/ veterans and seniors given his very positive standing), it will eat up one or maybe two days of air time. And each day that McCain loses the news cycle, the deeper the whole becomes.

I'm watching "Meet the Press" now, and Andrea Mitchell said that a huge factor in Powell's decision was the choice of Palin as VP. She's the gift that really just keeps on giving.
 
I feel the same way Powell does.

You can watch his segment on Meet the Press here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#27265490

He says a lot that isn't in the snippets you've seen around.


Powell represents a group of Republicans that the party has shifted away from in recent years. Fiscally conservative, for limited govenment and protecting our constitutional rights, and either moderate socially, or of the belief that they don't have the right to tell others how to live. This was the Republican party years ago, and the Bible thumpers were the fringe group, but now its the other way around. Those people care nothing about fiscal conservatism or your rights, in the last administration they've swept both aside in pursuit of their conservative social agenda.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']How do you figure? Because they ended the article with McCain's response? That's standard journalism. I think you see what you want to see.[/quote]

I didn't see it either.
 
The most crass interpretation came from talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who wrote the Politico's Jonathan Martin the following:
"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race... OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."
 
ewww.. Rush.. missed out. If he had just added unamerican and terrorist into his response he would have gotten the trifecta
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']The most crass interpretation came from talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who wrote the Politico's Jonathan Martin the following:
"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race... OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."[/QUOTE]
He of course ignores the fact that Powell's endorsement is almost strictly an indictment of the Republican party. He'd probably have endorsed Joe Biden if he were the nominee.
 
Although it may, perhaps, possibly help garner a few additional votes for Obama, it will definitely serve to further galvanize the Republican base. In the end, I don't think Powell's endorsement will make an appreciable difference on the election.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Powell represents a group of Republicans that the party has shifted away from in recent years. Fiscally conservative, for limited govenment and protecting our constitutional rights, and either moderate socially, or of the belief that they don't have the right to tell others how to live. This was the Republican party years ago, and the Bible thumpers were the fringe group, but now its the other way around. Those people care nothing about fiscal conservatism or your rights, in the last administration they've swept both aside in pursuit of their conservative social agenda.[/QUOTE]

Exactly right, and the reason Powell could possibly have been president himself and why the Republican Party has nosedived in the past few years.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']How do you figure? Because they ended the article with McCain's response? That's standard journalism. I think you see what you want to see.[/QUOTE]

They don't include Powell's strongest statements praising Obama, instead they only include defense of the negative. Defending against attacks hurts a candidates image more than publicizing your strengths -- the Fox piece gave defense on Obama's end and emphasized McCain's supposed strengths.

I realize it's not blatant, but it's definitely intentionally anti-Obama and pro-McCain. These are conscious decisions made by the editors, no doubt about it. They have a ten minute interview to work with and they choose Ayers, Muslim, taxation vs positives for McCain.

These subtle editorial decisions are precisely why biased press = bad press (we've had this discussion before)...
 
Wow, what a huge revelation... stop the presses...
Fox news is biased towards McCain... just like CNN et al. are biased towards Obama.


The relative immunity from criticism that Collin Powell has puzzles me. After all, he was the guy who stood up in front of the UN and gave a speech full of lies in order to gain support for military action against Iraq. In my mind, he should be held responsible for that crazy war just like all of Bush's insane zionist neocon cronies, who have wasted a great amount of our money and lives... if it were up to me, they'd all be exiled or hanged.
 
Powell is an empty suit piece of shit. He was second fiddle to a real general during the real Iraq war, he was an affirmative action hire**** brought in because he was black and military, something the administration wrung out of him entirely during the first term and used his ass up like a tampon (and he whimpered about it to the media instead of being a man and soldier and standing up), and he supports Obama with the race long over, meaning he gets to get a jab in without putting any skin in the game.

Hey Powell, from a former soldier, with love:

060329_cash.jpg


========
* My usage of the term affirmative action hire was meant to suggest he was hired because of his military cred. In no way was I suggesting it was because he was black. Seriously. I'm prior service and use the term in real life to describe when a politician without military experience uses one of us to further their own agenda. I would edit it out but it has been referred to about a hundred times in this thread so leaving it makes the thread more understandable. If you'd like to see more apology for not properly explaining myself, feel free to continue reading my posts. I think I apologize about 4 more times to varying degrees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']Powell is an empty suit piece of shit. He was second fiddle to a real general during the real Iraq war, he was an affirmative action hire brought in because he was black and military, something the administration wrung out of him entirely during the first term and used his ass up like a tampon (and he whimpered about it to the media instead of being a man and soldier and standing up), and he supports Obama with the race long over, meaning he gets to get a jab in without putting any skin in the game.

Hey Powell, from a former soldier, with love:

060329_cash.jpg
[/quote]

Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time and allowed his field general (Scwarzkopf) to do his thing. It's the same thing that Bush and the Joint Chiefs did with Petraeus and they got praised.... Oh, and I'm a former airman and I think you're a Douchebag First Class.


Back to Powell, why should he have to answer the question about race? As much as everyone claims that America is over race, the only thing that was talked about on Fox News was that Powell endorsed him because he's black. They even got a black conservative to get on and say Powell is Civil Rights era dinosaur that couldn't vote against a black candidate now that he's so close to the precipice of something great.

EDIT -- Oh, and I've met General Powell a couple of times. My dad worked under him when he commander of V Corps in Germany. Good guy and knew his shit. My dad is a conservative white guy from Iowa and loves General Powell. Have you ever met Colin Powell, sir, or do you just like to spew racist hate out of your ass. Affirmative action hire my ass. The man served in combat during Vietnam when the average life span for a butter bar Lieutenant was under two months.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time and allowed his field general (Scwarzkopf) to do his thing.[/quote]
The Joint Chiefs is not a spokesperson, even though the position has been turned into one by civilian politicians that just want a yes man to lend credence to a non military military decision. Just because Bush I and II turned the position into a yes man doesn't mean they're actually supposed to be one. I mean really, why do they even bother having one otherwise? You think the JC under those administrations did anything more than smile for the camera?
It's the same thing that Bush and the Joint Chiefs did with Petraeus and they got praised....
Click to expand...
Praised by who? The only strong military figure in this Iraq war was Gen. Shinseki, who was dismissed for having the audacity to claim that more than 100,000 troops were needed to win this war. How much you wanna bet this thing would have turned out differently if he was kept on? That's military bearing in the face of civilian stupidity. Show me a single case of Powell or Petraeus doing anything remotely similar.

No. They went and found a yes man that would walk up the hill and spew nonsense. Shinseki out, Petraeus in (and really, only after going through how many O-9's that were even emptier suits than Petraeus?).
Oh, and I'm a former airman and I think you're a Douchebag First Class.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't like civilians making military decisions. It turns out poorly. Bush I wasn't in charge of the Iraq war. Schwartzy was, because he was a badass that wasn't going to take marching orders from douchebags. The level of military professionalism was top notch in the first Iraq war.
EDIT -- Oh, and I've met General Powell a couple of times. My dad worked under him when he commander of V Corps in Germany. Good guy and knew his shit.
Click to expand...
Well then. Let's disregard the reality of his "leadership" (I'd love to hear an example of that btw) and go with what you heard him say in a mess hall or a command change ceremony in Germany.

My dad is a conservative white guy from Iowa and loves General Powell.
Click to expand...
I don't like door mats, but hey, to each his own. Feel free to point out Powell's outstanding leadership achievements.* All the great things he did in the last 40 years. I'm all ears.
Have you ever met Colin Powell, sir, or do you just like to spew racist hate out of your ass. Affirmative action hire my ass. The man served in combat during Vietnam when the average life span for a butter bar Lieutenant was under two months.
Click to expand...
*surviving Vietnam, while admirable, doesn't qualify as a leadership trait to be leaned on 40 years later.

By affirmative action, I meant he was hired because he was military, not black. Black helped no doubt for this administration, but he was hired because of the cred he earned on Schwartzkopf's excellent handling of the war.

The Army in the last 20 years has had a wealth of top talent in the general corps. Powell did nothing special (relative to any other general officer) but stand at a microphone. Shinseki initiated Force XXI, moving the Army from heavy fighting to urban fighting ability, believing that the fights of the 21st century would involve street fighting and peace keeping. When the civilians ordered this new Iraq war, he set them straight and was dismissed for it.

That is foresight. Leadership. Military training. Microphones are for politicians and empty suits.

Powell did nothing. NOTHING.

Show me I'm wrong. Show me what Powell did that even approaches Shinseki.
 
And if anyone cares, here's an excerpt from Gen. Shinseki's wikipedia page. You want to see what a real American badass general looks like? What the bar is really set at? What does a real general look like, now that it's been so damn long since we had one? Here you go:

On February 25, 2003, four months before the end of his term as Chief of Staff of the Army, Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thought an occupying force of several hundred thousand men would be needed to stabilize postwar Iraq. He was pressed to provide a range by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Below is an excerpt from the exchange:[14]

SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence.
Click to expand...

Looks like he was, well, about as right the hell on as humanly possible. While Powell sat quietly in the corner of the Bush administration, the other dogs of war let loose:

In a public rebuke to Shinseki, Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark"[15] and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[1] Specifically, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:

DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine.
Click to expand...
Whoops. This is what happens when civilians run wars AND THE MILITARY BRASS LETS THEM. Don't ever forget it.

On November 15, 2006, Gen. John P. Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, acknowledged that in his view, and with hindsight, Shinseki had been correct in his view that a larger post-war force was needed. Abizaid noted that this force could have included Iraqi or international forces in addition to American force:[16][17]

SEN. Lindsay GRAHAM (Republican, S. C.): Was General Shinseki correct when you look backward that we needed more troops to secure the country, General Abizaid?
GEN. ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.
Click to expand...
Shinseki = top quality
Schwartzkopf = top quality
Powell = empty suit

As a historical aside, the Bush administration cut the legs out of Shinseki by leaking his replacement FOURTEEN MONTHS before he was scheduled to retire. It was Gen. Keane that would take over, another big time badass that wouldn't have taken their shit. So of course they changed their mind and picked someone that would toe the line and be a press bitch. It screwed Shinseki and punked out Keane. Doing them both like that was about the worst thing you can do to guys that high up the rank.

Powell, as always, did nothing and said nothing.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
By affirmative action, I meant he was hired because he was military, not black. Black helped no doubt for this administration, but he was hired because of the cred he earned on Schwartzkopf's excellent handling of the war. [/quote]

You know damn well that affirmative action means getting minorities in under a quota system. Saying otherwise makes you as ignorant as all the other right wing hatemongers.

And using Wikipedia as reference tool isn't the smartest move when you're trying to make a point.

You're basically saying that Colin Powell has no skills at all. You're saying that anyone can become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and that anyone can become Secretary of State. Right.....

I've said before that Powell chose to let Schwarzkopf handle the war as he sought fit. He could've been a micro manager but he let his guy in the field make all the major decisions while he made sure that the people in Washington stayed out of the way. That's leadership to me.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You know damn well that affirmative action means getting minorities in under a quota system. Saying otherwise makes you as ignorant as all the other right wing hatemongers.[/quote]
You know, I even thought about it later and thought that I should have clarified. Thanks for being the better man and letting me off the hook. I appreciate it.

And using Wikipedia as reference tool isn't the smartest move when you're trying to make a point.
Click to expand...
Don't reference the points I was making. It'll make the devolution to ad hominem much easier for both of us.

You're basically saying that Colin Powell has no skills at all.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's what I'm saying.

You're saying that anyone can become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and that anyone can become Secretary of State. Right.....
Click to expand...
I'm saying any suck up willing to toe the line instead of telling the truth gets rewarded with a JC appointment by Republicans. But let's not take my word for it. In reference to Gen. Shinseki standing up and telling the civilian leaders that their plan sucked:

Yet, Major Hardaway said, General Shinseki had shown there was a great cost, at least under Mr. Rumsfeld. “Evidence shows that when you do that in uniform, bad things can happen,” he said. “So, it’s sort of a dichotomy of, should I do the right thing, even if I get punished?”
Click to expand...
I bet we can talk for hours about all the times Powell DIDN'T do the right thing and risk punishment, so how about something that shows that Gen. Powell is or ever was half the man Gen. Shinseki is?
I've said before that Powell chose to let Schwarzkopf handle the war as he sought fit. He could've been a micro manager but he let his guy in the field make all the major decisions while he made sure that the people in Washington stayed out of the way. That's leadership to me.
Click to expand...
The problem you aren't getting is that even though a little birdie told you that Powell got out of the way to let Schwartzkopf kick ass, that doesn't make Powell any more of... anything. I mean really, your "argument" is that Powell let someone competent make competent decisions. Is there something particularly heroic about that?

I mean really, is that it?
 
I don't think that anyone really cares if Powell is "badass," why don't you mature for a few years and come back and post then.
 
never knew people had the hate for Powell, thought he was pretty much liked all around. After watching Frontlines "bush's War" felt abit sad for Powell they really fucked around with him.. well more Cheney and Rusmfield
 
[quote name='speedracer']Personally, I don't like civilians making military decisions.[/QUOTE]

Boy are you in the wrong country and apparently were in the wrong military, buddy.
 
Am I slaughtering a sacred cow or what? What's with this irrational love for a guy that's done absolutely nothing of value? Someone, feel free to correct me (though apparently wikipedia citation is a no-no).

[quote name='elprincipe']Boy are you in the wrong country and apparently were in the wrong military, buddy.[/QUOTE]
Military men are charged with the prosecution of the war. It is their purpose. They go to colleges and get advanced degrees, spend huge sums of time studying past and present conflicts, from high to low intensity and everything in between. They conduct war games, they lead teams against our own forces to illustrate our weaknesses and to understand them better.

The decision to make war is solely the province of civilian politicians. The decision to end war is solely the province of politicians. No military man should ever make those kinds of decisions. They are not equipped to do so, lacking both the training and the legitimacy. "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die" is the mantra and it is very real. You do not question a civilian that has the authority to make war (while wearing the uniform in a professional capacity).

The problem begins because worthless fuck civilians let their worthless fuck politicians fuck up good plans drawn up over decades with their worthless fuck ideas of how a war is going to go.

Or, the shorter version: Personally, I don't like civilians making military decisions.

Make sense now?

That was a shit thing to suggest like you did. I don't appreciate it. Don't be a dick and I won't be either.
[quote name='JolietJake']I don't think that anyone really cares if Powell is "badass," why don't you mature for a few years and come back and post then.[/QUOTE]
Bad ass was a figure of speech. You understand that right? I mean, you actually do understand what I meant, you're just being an asshole right? Because you apparently disagree with something I've said, right? STFU and GTFO unless you have something worth reading to write.

That's a formal invitation. Say something of meaning next time. I'd love to hear your thoughts on why Saint Powell deserved canonization.
[quote name='homeland']never knew people had the hate for Powell, thought he was pretty much liked all around. After watching Frontlines "bush's War" felt abit sad for Powell they really fucked around with him.. well more Cheney and Rusmfield[/QUOTE]
And what did he do but slink out of the room like a little bitch? Oh, and write a book that said absolutely nothing but traded on the experience that he won't talk about in any meaningful way. We have a guy here that got used up like a tampon and took it like a freshman at frat initiation time. Is that laudable?

Doesn't anyone find it unusual that such a universally loved figure (so loved that douches like Jake are coming out of the wood work) has so much support, yet *NO ONE* has offered *ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO RESEMBLING* anything at all that would in any way support the public image of the warrior statesman that's on YOUR SIDE? Anything? Anything at all?

I mean, other than the 500lb. elephant of his utter disaster as a political tool that no one seems to want to talk about... or the legitimacy his tenure in the administration lent these obviously inept idiots running the country... or the complete lack of substance as a JC... or his total inability to stand up and support a candidate until long after it's decided...

I mean, what am I missing? Set me straight. I missed a memo or something that obviously everyone else on the planet got.
=============
edited to add below:
=============
How about some more fuel for the fire?

When Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder questioned General Colin Powell about the apparent analogy between the current controversy over gays in the military, and the post-war debate about the wisdom of racial integration in the armed forces, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs responded by arguing that "skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics."
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, what? Skin color is benign but sexual orientation is (therefore rationally) non-benign? What's the definition of non-benign? And is he saying that gay soldiers are somehow slaves to their profound behavioral characteristic? Have you ever read a bigger load of horse shit in defense of Don't Ask?
=======
edit2: And see? I didn't even bring up My Lai. Or his involvement with Reagan. Or...
Image:Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like how you keep saying he's never done anything. My question to you is: How easy do you think it is to get four stars? You're acting like anyone can get a commission and, magically, in 25-30 years the higher ups will just give them four stars for the hell of it.

My second question: Do you also celebrate John McCain's service in Vietnam? It seems like if you bash Powell for surviving Nam, then McCain should be under the same scrutiny since, technically, he was less successful over there.
 
You know, I keep asking for someone, ANYONE to explain to me why I'm off base with my feelings on Powell. Am I just insane or what? Clearly I've hit a nerve here, yet in a forum where most people are willing to engage in at least tacit debate in support of a position, no one seems able to articulate anything in support of this guy. Except, you know, that he was in Vietnam. I don't get it.
[quote name='evanft']Ignored.
[/QUOTE]
And the world keeps on spinnin, brother. Thanks for taking the time to indulge yourself with your announcement. Keep up the good work and fighting the good fight against scum like me.
[quote name='depascal22']I like how you keep saying he's never done anything. My question to you is: How easy do you think it is to get four stars? You're acting like anyone can get a commission and, magically, in 25-30 years the higher ups will just give them four stars for the hell of it.[/quote]
You said you were in. You know it's an intensely political process once you try to go past O-4 (and arguably long before that). In my experience, there were two types. The kind that were just such amazing leaders that people got the hell out of the way (Shinseki, Schwartzkopf, Keane come to mind), and then there's the ones that just kind of end up there without any outstanding qualifications (of which I would put Powell in there). He's always been in the right place at the right time. He cozied up to Reagan and got in good with the Veep at the time, who then made him JC when he became president, undoubtedly the most political position in the armed forces. He was the first JC to never lead a division level unit. Is that a point in his favor? I certainly don't think so.

No one outside of the military can name a single 4 star, 3 star, hell, anyone not on the teevee. 4 stars is a hell of an achievement. Certainly. But since when do 4 stars or JCs become deities that do no wrong? Nobody feels this way about any JC before or since in recent history. Why Powell?

My second question: Do you also celebrate John McCain's service in Vietnam? It seems like if you bash Powell for surviving Nam, then McCain should be under the same scrutiny since, technically, he was less successful over there.
Click to expand...
I don't bash the man for surviving Vietnam. Lord knows I'm not half the man the worst man in theater was. But fighting in a war doesn't make you invincible or unapproachable. I take it personally when people write off McCain's service, even though I personally can't stomach the guy. I took it personally when those assholes were wearing purple heart band aids at the Republican convention, taking a shot a Kerry, even though I can't stomach the guy. I don't think Powell's service is any more or less valuable than any other service member. I just can't stomach the guy. He has a long and distinguished track record of mediocrity while maintaining positions of power.

So why the hero worship? We aren't talking about Audie Murphy here. Feathers are so ruffled I'm hitting the ignore lists. But can anyone tell me why?

I. Just. Don't. Get. It.

Perhaps I should say something nice about him. The Powell doctrine rocks. Yea, it was done before and better, but he was on the right track for sure.

Better?
 
[quote name='speedracer']You know, I keep asking for someone, ANYONE to explain to me why I'm off base with my feelings on Powell. Am I just insane or what? Clearly I've hit a nerve here, yet in a forum where most people are willing to engage in at least tacit debate in support of a position, no one seems able to articulate anything in support of this guy. Except, you know, that he was in Vietnam. I don't get it.

And the world keeps on spinnin, brother. Thanks for taking the time to indulge yourself with your announcement. Keep up the good work and fighting the good fight against scum like me.

You said you were in. You know it's an intensely political process once you try to go past O-4 (and arguably long before that). In my experience, there were two types. The kind that were just such amazing leaders that people got the hell out of the way (Shinseki, Schwartzkopf, Keane come to mind), and then there's the ones that just kind of end up there without any outstanding qualifications (of which I would put Powell in there). He's always been in the right place at the right time. He cozied up to Reagan and got in good with the Veep at the time, who then made him JC when he became president, undoubtedly the most political position in the armed forces. He was the first JC to never lead a division level unit. Is that a point in his favor? I certainly don't think so.

No one outside of the military can name a single 4 star, 3 star, hell, anyone not on the teevee. 4 stars is a hell of an achievement. Certainly. But since when do 4 stars or JCs become deities that do no wrong? Nobody feels this way about any JC before or since in recent history. Why Powell?


I don't bash the man for surviving Vietnam. Lord knows I'm not half the man the worst man in theater was. But fighting in a war doesn't make you invincible or unapproachable. I take it personally when people write off McCain's service, even though I personally can't stomach the guy. I took it personally when those assholes were wearing purple heart band aids at the Republican convention, taking a shot a Kerry, even though I can't stomach the guy. I don't think Powell's service is any more or less valuable than any other service member. I just can't stomach the guy. He has a long and distinguished track record of mediocrity while maintaining positions of power.

So why the hero worship? We aren't talking about Audie Murphy here. Feathers are so ruffled I'm hitting the ignore lists. But can anyone tell me why?

I. Just. Don't. Get. It.

Perhaps I should say something nice about him. The Powell doctrine rocks. Yea, it was done before and better, but he was on the right track for sure.

Better?[/quote]
Speed,
You just seemed angry and bitter at the man. I'm not saying Powell was right in everything he did, but in the same token you gotta give him some respect for what he has done.
 
[quote name='Sc4rfac3']Speed,
You just seemed angry and bitter at the man. I'm not saying Powell was right in everything he did, but in the same token you gotta give him some respect for what he has done.[/QUOTE]
I'm totally bitter at the dude. But I've written enough about that to fill a tome.

What has he done that gets such crazy positives from people?

1. He was a 4 star. Ok.
2. He was a JC. Ok.

But no one has an opinion on any other 4 star/JCs, so that can't be it.

3. He was in Vietnam.

Well, that certainly isn't it, judging from Kerry, McCain, and Dole if you want to count WWII.

4. He was the NSA for Reagan. That didn't go well.
5. He was the SecState for Bush. That didn't go well (understatement of the decade).
6. He made the case for war in Iraq. That didn't go well (perhaps 2nd biggest understatement of the decade).
7. He cashed in on his SecState gig by writing a book that said nothing. That's not special.
8. He gave what can charitably be described as an awful defense of Don't Ask.
9. He supported a candidate only after the race is virtually over by most measures. Not special.
10. ????

Someone please fill in #10 for me. I'm missing it.
 
To be fair to Gen. Powell, if you've read any of Bob Woodward's books on the GWB presidency, he warned of the massive force necessary to control Iraq, advised heavily against having to "own" it for a decade, and was privately strongarmed and undermined in the state department to keep his opinions to himself. Then the whole UN testimony, which unarguably degraded his credibility, probably led to this decision.

If I were him I'd want to unseat the cabal who's been in charge of this foreign policy fiasco for the last 8 years as well. He perhaps has more insight into the innerworkings of the bush/clinton/bush foreign policy machine of the last 20 years. Obama and Biden may represent a new faction of power since the Democrat party has now been wrenched free from the Clinton powerbase. Who really knows, though? Certainly not us.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']To be fair to Gen. Powell, if you've read any of Bob Woodward's books on the GWB presidency, he warned of the massive force necessary to control Iraq, advised heavily against having to "own" it for a decade, and was privately strongarmed and undermined in the state department to keep his opinions to himself. Then the whole UN testimony, which unarguably degraded his credibility, probably led to this decision.[/quote]
But that's my point. What part of pointing out the obvious is laudable? At no point did put his own skin in the game. He got run over by a MAC truck. Is that a positive?

If I were him I'd want to unseat the cabal who's been in charge of this foreign policy fiasco for the last 8 years as well. He perhaps has more insight into the innerworkings of the bush/clinton/bush foreign policy machine of the last 20 years. Obama and Biden may represent a new faction of power since the Democrat party has now been wrenched free from the Clinton powerbase. Who really knows, though? Certainly not us.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, but isn't that another strike against him? If he feels like that, why remain quiet as a church mouse? Where's the willingness to come out and do and say the right thing? It's like he gets brownie points because he *may* have thought what many of us did, though he never got anywhere near acting. Is that laudable?

Not only that, but his quiet act set the tone for the rest of the administration. If Powell didn't have the cojones to talk, who on earth would?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']To be fair to Gen. Powell, if you've read any of Bob Woodward's books on the GWB presidency, he warned of the massive force necessary to control Iraq, advised heavily against having to "own" it for a decade, and was privately strongarmed and undermined in the state department to keep his opinions to himself. Then the whole UN testimony, which unarguably degraded his credibility, probably led to this decision.

If I were him I'd want to unseat the cabal who's been in charge of this foreign policy fiasco for the last 8 years as well. He perhaps has more insight into the innerworkings of the bush/clinton/bush foreign policy machine of the last 20 years. Obama and Biden may represent a new faction of power since the Democrat party has now been wrenched free from the Clinton powerbase. Who really knows, though? Certainly not us.[/quote]
B never thought i would agree with you. This is also some of the reason that he is at odds with the Republican party.
 
Speed, are you a joke account because you are giving me the biggest laugh I've had all week. I'm impressed at how you're able to dredge up hate for every response - not to mention how you top it off with "Don't be a dick" like it's some shitty catchphrase. :lol:
 
speedracer,

You said that Powell never commanded at the division level. He was commander of V Corps in Germany in the late 80s. The subordinate divisions for V Corps were:

1st Armored Division (Big Red One)
2nd Cavalry Regiment
172d Infantry Brigade
12th Combat Aviation Brigade
18th Military Police Brigade
18th Engineer Brigade
21st Sustainment Command (Theater)
16th Sustainment Brigade
HQ V Corps Artillery

Those were all the units under his command in the late 80s. If you recall, V Corps was headquartered in the Abrams Building in Frankfurt. The prime responsibility of V Corps was to protect the Fulda Gap which was seen as the main entry point for a Soviet and East German invasion of West Germany. Now would you put a moron in command of arguably the most important field unit in Europe? Would you ask an idiot to protect free Western Europe from the Soviets? You think that any old political hack would be given such an important position in the Army? Get your facts straight and we'll go from there.
 
I can't believe speed is attacking Powell now... calling him "an affirmative action hire" is almost lolable. Just ignore him...
 
I don't like to ignore people. It's good to hear other viewpoints even if I disagree with them. I'll come back with facts and let them speak for themselves.
 
I didn't mean actually put him on ignore, I don't do that either, I just meant not to credit his raving lunacy with a dignified response.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I didn't mean actually put him on ignore, I don't do that either, I just meant not to credit his raving lunacy with a dignified response.[/quote]

It's not just for him. It's for the people that might stumble in and see this garbage and walk away thinking that we will just stand by and let someone spew nonsense without recourse.
 
[quote name='depascal22']It's not just for him. It's for the people that might stumble in and see this garbage and walk away thinking that we will just stand by and let someone spew nonsense without recourse.[/QUOTE]

Right. Nonsense is only tolerated here when it comes from CAG's leftist consensus.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Right. Nonsense is only tolerated here when it comes from CAG's leftist consensus.[/quote]
Ugh just when i was letting the guard down on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top