A Note About Colin Powell...

by: David Sirota

Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 19:00


Just a little note on Colin Powell, who many believe will appear on Meet the Press to endorse Barack Obama this weekend. If this happens, the elite media will be ablaze with stories talking about how awesome and Serious and Respected Colin Powell is. While this propaganda will be good in its short-term benefit to Obama, it will be horrific in the long-term sense of our country's ability to recognize its worst decisions and move forward from them.

Let's just remember: Colin Powell is one of the major reasons we went to war in Iraq. In his 2003 United Nations speech, he perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in the history of international diplomacy - a fraud that, in terms of its blood-and-guts ramifications, dwarfs major scandals like Watergate.

The idea that being endorsed by someone like that is a good thing - well, that logic may fly in the television studios of New York and D.C., but it shouldn't fly anywhere else. A person whose most important legacy is destroying America's international credibility shouldn't be seen as a Serious or Respectable person, nor an asset to any campaign, no matter how many apologists - liberal or conservative - claim that "behind the scenes" Powell was really a good guy. He wasn't a good guy - he was one of the handful of people who quite literally lied us into a war. That the elite media imparts even an ounce of credibility to this dishonest yes-man is not a commentary on Powell's alleged positive attributes. It is a reflection of the elite media's deep disdain for the facts and truth it purports to respect.

UPDATE: I just have to respond to some commenters who are denying the truism that Colin Powell was one of the major reasons we went to war. If you don't believe that simple fact, then you must have been temporarily lobotomized during 2003. Apparently, you forgot about his U.N. presentation - one of the single most decisive factors in pushing us to war. Sure, there were certainly other Bush officials who helped get us into war. But to deny that Colin Powell was a major factor in sending us into a war based on lies is to quite literally deny that the sky is blue.
David Sirota :: A Note About Colin Powell...

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Note About Colin Powell... | 76 comments
You Can't Think This Seriously Matters David! (4.00 / 4)
Of course Powell was a major enabler of the war. But, fast forward to the present.

Either he endorses Obama or he doesn't. That DOESN'T mean Obama has to give him a cabinet spot or something.

He'll act rather like one of the elder statesmen called in to tell Johnson that the Vietnam war was lost.

It will provide some political cover. He can call them all together and get their advice about withdrawing from Iraq. He'd be the Republican "statesman" to make it more difficult to attack Obama as "traitor" for "losing the war."

Meanwhile it's a short-term political lift, if only because the media will stop talking about that imbecile "Joe the Plummer" and talk about this for the next 3 days.

It will dominate the news for a couple of days, in the absence of another major financial catastrophe and that alone will be horrible for McCain, who desperately needs to be a constant attention whore at this point.  

What about the argument... (4.00 / 2)
that this is Powell trying to repent for that?  He realizes that the Iraq war and every other Bush policy are total disasters, so maybe he feels guilty?
I think that will depend (4.00 / 6)
On what he says. Is he actually going to repent for the Iraq War? Or just endorse Barack Obama as if that somehow cancels the other thing out by itself?

I keep thinking about that bizarre Washington Post endorsement that simultaneously endorsed the Iraq War and Barack Obama, and described Obama's anti-Iraq stance as not a central strength of his candidacy but rather some kind of shameful drawback to be gotten over. They endorsed Barack Obama, but couldn't really bring themselves to repudiate the man Obama will replace, and I'm thinking-- will Powell do the same thing? In endorsing Obama, if he does, will Powell take that one more step that the Washington Post didn't and actually repent for the wrongness of what came before?

I almost feel like the latter would be more useful than the former. If Powell endorses Obama-- well, Obama was probably going to win anyway. We're almost past the point of concern about whether Obama will win and on into the question of "how will Obama govern?". And a clear statement of how our foreign policy went wrong from a respected (-by-the-village-anyway) Republican could actually have a positive impact on how Obama is able to govern. What we need now is not cover for Republicans to vote for Obama, but cover for Obama to do the right thing on Iraq without the DC establishment skewering him for it.

[ Parent ]
endorsing Obama does not qualify (4.00 / 5)
as repenting for Powell's testimony at the UN Security Council.

If he wants credit for repenting then he should repent, publicly.

[ Parent ]
He's Repented As Much As He's Going To! (4.00 / 3)
It's all about public relations. Trying to force Powell to "recant" publicly is not only futile, but pointless.
He can "advise" Obama. Obama will "listen."

If Colin Powell emerges with a position in the Obama administration, then that will be time enough to start screaming about his unfitness.

If he wants to endorse now, fine. It makes it even harder for McCain who will then face 2 or 3 days of negative publicity. Short term: advantage Obama.

Long Term: When Lyndon Johnson wanted cover for his decision what to do about the war in 1968, he convened the "wise men" a group of "senior statesmen" who then advised him to bring the war to a close. He rejected their counsel, but Obama already knows what advice any sensible person would give him: get out as quickly as you can without leaving a catastrophe.

All he has to do is convene the "wise-men" and include some prominent Republicans to give political cover to a decision he's already making

He can then put these guys out front and say that he's taking the advice of his general staff and senior foreign policy experts from both parties. He can hand-pick the ones he will listen to. (Johnson had people like former Truman and Kennedy officials).

He'll have the support of the Joint Chiefs of staff, as many as 20 or 30 retired senior officers from all branches of the service, former Clinton administration and Bush I State Department officials and former ambassadors, virtually the entire panoply of moderate to liberal foreign policy experts. He can put them into a massive lineup for a photo op. Have them issue a commission report to the President. And Colin Powell will be an important "Name" to put on the report.

[ Parent ]
Isn't it wonderful to be saying this public image stuff (4.00 / 4)
and knowing Obama will know exactly what to do with it.

I agree with Sirota that Powell is a goddamn whore only I think far worse of him than anyone I know or have read. No, I am wrong, Harry Belefonte called him and Condi house you know whats on Larry King and got away with it.

I find him totally despicable. He could have broken with Bush right then and there. Scott Ritter wouldn't cave on WMD. And there have been others.  

[ Parent ]
Let him come clean in public (4.00 / 3)
or in a court of law, and see if anyone buys it.

Endorsing Obama does nothing on that score. Certainly, Powell can see the hand-writing on the wall, how do I know he's not just making one more political calculation - like when he compromised himself for GWB and the Neo-Con Junta?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Next to Cheney or Bin Laden, (4.00 / 6)
it's hard to think of a less welcome endorsement. A thumbs up from this bloodsoaked political quisling is nothing to celebrate. If Powell were really such a "good guy" he'd have the grace to get out of the spotlight and just shut up after he begs the American people to forgive him.

He is at best a tragic figure. I just hope Obama doesn't feel compelled to pretend he's anything more than that.

Powell (4.00 / 7)
I am so with you on this one. Why people are getting all jazzed about a Powell endorsement is beyond me. First, like you said, the guy sealed our fate with Iraq. Secondly, he's 150% Republican. Thirdly, the guy just testified in court that Ted Stevens is a "sterling" guy. I don't trust Powell any farther than I could throw him.
True, but (4.00 / 2)
Hey, we're all in agreement on Powell.  But if he peels away a handful of Republicans to Obama's side, that's fine by me.  
Some news value (4.00 / 2)
"Colin Powell is one of the major reasons we went to war in Iraq"? Where did you get that from? He collaborated with Bush administration (be it unwillingly -as he claims) to "justify" the war. He knowingly went along with administrations lies about WMDs. But he was not "the major reasons we went to war in Iraq."Let's condemn the man for what he has actually done!
I don't believe Obama needs his approval and in no way his approval would obligate Obama to consider him for a role in his administration. It just has some news value. That's all.
He was responsible because of his supposed integrity (4.00 / 3)
And the international community respected him very much. He had not gone after the presidency in 2000 when he could have had it I think. He was not a power grabber. He made the correct decision on Desert Storm and Bush I took it. What is so horrible about him is that he knew from Desert Storm that we couldn't go all the way in Iraq without being totally bogged down. And so he gives Georgie Boy the clout to pull it off. Without this respected man talking to the international community it would not have been pulled off. It was Powell's stature that did it.

And if you can't see that, then it just means that you are not psychologically developed, that's all. No one else in Bush's administration had the credibility to convince the UN.

[ Parent ]
He got that from being aware of what was going on at the time (4.00 / 3)
The only single individual to give a more widely publisized defense of going to war was Bush (possibly Blair, but that had little to do with our going to war).  And it is quite important that Powell was trusted much more by foreign leaders and the press than Bush, or Cheney or Rumsfeld.  He is part of the explanation for why the Democratic party and the press didn't do their jobs.  Remember that from 1996 until around the time the war went south Powell was the most popular public figure in America, and was popular amongst both Democrats and Republicans.  He had more power to guide public opinion on foriegn policy and security issues than anyone else in America at the time.

Were you reading newspapers at the time (I ask that in all seriousness because I for one had stopped reading the major US newspapers in favor of reading European ones, and I know several people who had already given up on print media entirely)?  Do you remember how much Powell's UN presentation was cited in defense of the war?

[ Parent ]
an endorsement by colin powell (4.00 / 3)
why wouldn't any candidate welcome that, to be supported by the man who lied at the un because he was more loyal to his vote suppressing pres then the country he supposedly loves, and therefore validated the illegal war the us is waging not for democracy but to make the neocons (fascists) he is beholding to not only more wealthy but more importantly more powerful, congrats colin you must be so proud.
Thank you David Sirota (4.00 / 5)
Powell lied us into war and was part of the gang that institutionalized torture. Powell was also on Air Force One that fateful morning when they decided to betray Valerie Plame Wilso.

Powell is a war criminal and traitor and would be driven from polite circles in a healthy political culture.

No, Just No (4.00 / 3)
Saying Colin Powell is a major reason we went to war in Iraq is like saying doctor's are a major reason women give birth. Of course they're not, they are just a minor, replaceable component, and are not even required to produce the inevitable outcome. I was gonna pop out of my momma's stomach no matter what Dr. Whosawhatzit had to say about it, and GWB and friends were going to bomb Iraq to hell regardless of what General Powell did or didn't do.

Ok, odd analogy, but its 5 on Friday and that's the best I could come up with.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

He could have resigned (4.00 / 6)
at the very least.

He doesn't have the the "the" reason for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to lose integrity over the issue.  Sure, some hesitant Republicans might still think his judgement has some meaning, but I'd rather he endorse McCain because it would be one more way to tie McCain to Bush.

I'd start rumors that McCain will make him Sec. Def, or something like that - Amb. to Iraq?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I think you misunderstand public sentiment (4.00 / 2)
Most people like and respect Colin Powell, and think his involvement in the war was minor and reluctant. For those who pay a little closer attention, he is the guy who fought against the Bush cabal and was eventually ousted for his refusal to fall in line.

I'm not talking about what's true or right, I'm talking about how folks see America and Powell's place in it.

If Powell endorsed McCain it would be BAD IN EVERY WAY for Barack Obama. Only people like you and me would sit back and laugh "ha, another chain linking him to Bush!". Few others would find that perspective.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
The endorsement won't hurt Obama (4.00 / 1)
and will help him. And he is too cool to be contemptuous of Powell. But neither will he be buddie buddies with him IMHO. The only reason people think of him the way you have described is because of the traditional media's take on him for the cameras. It would have been very difficult for them to jump on him about Iraq without being called rascist. So you see how very very important his rubber stamp was for Bush.

Who else do you have in mind who could have had the clout to convince the UN?

[ Parent ]
Maybe, maybe not (0.00 / 0)
Powell may well be irrelevant

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
He knowingly, willingly, aided and abetted. (4.00 / 3)
Two sets of standards always.  One for the commoners and another for the ruling class.  I wouldn't pal around with this man or his endorsement.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Yes, quite so (4.00 / 1)
YOu say that "GWB and friends were going to bomb Iraq to hell regardless of what General Powell did or didn't do."  I think that to the extent we can know the truth of such counterfactuals, this one is quite wrong.  What is true is that they wanted to do, and were going to try to do it, independent of anything Powell did.  But there was this little matter of getting the Democrats to jump on board, and getting the American people to stay supportive, or at least quiet about their dissent.  And Powell was quite important to that task.
[ Parent ]
Not To Mention Old WMDs Said Stevens Was A Stand Up Guy! (4.00 / 4)
Why can't Colin just set up a PAC, "War Criminals And Bald-Faced Liars For Obama"?

It would be soooo much more honest....

Oh, wait...

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Okay, David, I agree that Powell's endorsement isn't Obama's finest hour (4.00 / 1)
but come on, one of the closest supporters of a sitting GOP President just endorsed the other party's candidate! That does mean something! Rats fleeing a sinking ship maybe, who knows, but it SOUNDS impressive!

Of course, to the right wing crew who had already turned on Powell for his shift in attitude towards the Iraq war, it's just another treasonable action by what they had assumed was a nice safe Uncle Tom. But don't we owe it to ourselves to be better people than they are?

Seems to me that this isn't black and white. It is an abandonment by a close associate of the President of his failed policies and a refusal of an old vet to endorse another candidate just because he's a vet too, but it's also too little and too late by a man who we as a nation trusted to do a bit better than this.

Overall,I say we take it as a minor success and move on.

It means Powell can make calculated political choices (4.00 / 3)
but, we already knew that, of course.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Not to mention torture (4.00 / 4)
He was, remember, one of the "principals"

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

An unconditional acceptance of his endorsement would, to say the least, complicate prosecutions against Bush and his henchpeople for war crimes, but as someone who never thought for a second that Obama would seek to prosecute them, I'm not disturbed by Powell's backing O. All sorts of people who've backed him hold abhorrent views. And so it goes.


I forgot the (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Am still hoping the international community (4.00 / 2)
will go after Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld.  At lease make it impossible for them to go abroad.
[ Parent ]
Not an impressive argument (4.00 / 1)
There are a lot of Americans who think your view is extreme. I am one of them. Oh, it's definitely possible that we're all wrong, but maybe we're not.

From where I sit, Colin Powell is not a major reason we went to war. He was a cog in the machine, sure, but you could pull his very existence off planet Earth and the Bush administration would have simply forged on into Iraq without missing a beat. Surely you read Richard Clarke's book? Bush himself was all about getting into Iraq and he pushed the country into this travesty.

If it makes you happy to blame Mr. Powell, go right ahead. But your diary is perilously close to frothing, IMO. Try for a less shrill tone next time. It's really hard to take such caterwauling seriously, and I am a big Sirota fan.


Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

Judgment at Nuremberg (4.00 / 3)
Judge Dan Haywood character
Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and death of millions by the government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts - if the leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs - these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural catastrophes. But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men - even able and extraordinary men - can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination. No one who has sat through this trial can ever forget. The sterilization of men because of their political beliefs... The murder of children... How easily that can happen! There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the "protection" of the country. Of "survival". The answer to that is: survival as what? A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world - let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what we stand for: justice, truth... and the value of a single human being!

[ Parent ]
only if you're ready to render the same judgement (0.00 / 0)
against 99.9% of the american politicians who have ever served in national office, and a lot who haven't.
[ Parent ]
Powell was the lipstick (4.00 / 1)
that seduced the UN.
[ Parent ]
Not an impressive argument. (4.00 / 1)
There are lots of Americans who think your view is lazy, crazy or stupid.  I am one of them.  Oh, it's definitely possible that we're all wrong, but maybe we're not.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
You should write political ads (0.00 / 0)
So Colin Powell is a major reason we went to war? When you choose to dispute the intro of the argument rather than the argument itself, you look vacuous.

But hey, thanks for the enlightening snark. Everything's clearer now. Since I seem to have missed your actual argument with my view, my viewpoint's problem is clearly my laziness, craziness or stupidity. I appreciate your taking the time to correct me.


Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
I saw Colin Powell give a talk in LA a couple of years ago, and he is 100% (4.00 / 6)
neoCon. He talked for a couple of hours with passion about the superiority of every right-wing point of view on education, the economy, foreign policy, etc. Powell is NOT a closet progressive. He is a full out right-wing neoCon who fully believes in the ideology of Bush and Cheney even if he disagrees with their execution of it. Hearing it from his own mouth was actually quite surprising for me since I thought he was more reasoned.

Now that's not to say he may prefer lying to the American people and world community to actually pushing the buttons of unjustifiable death and destruction himself, but make no mistake - he loves mixing the Kool-Aid.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

Colin Powell (4.00 / 1)
Dude drives a PT Cruiser, fer chrissakes. Zero credibility.

Have you ever driven one of those things? Ghastly.

why does powell get a post (0.00 / 0)
but obama complimenting kissinger didn't, the numerous other war criminals (by this standard) who walk around Washington (i.e. virtually every politician who has elected office) don't, etc.  Why is Bill Clinton's endorsement good but Colin Powell's isn't?

Just sayin...

or to put it another way (0.00 / 0)
does anyone seriously believe that a well executed iraq war that was over already + the afghanistan war would have damaged republican credibility?  no, because the u.s. is an imperialist country.  The mainstream never even talks about how the choice being presented is not "war or no war" but "iraq war or afghanistan + pakistan war."  So in THAT context, why is a powell endorsement bad news? I think it's kind of sexy, albeit in the context of gross imperialism.
If Powell also admits he was a stooge in 03 then (0.00 / 0)
an endorsement for Obama is fine by me.

I had great respect for Powell and the Bushies seemed to use him as cover - he did leave the admin soon after - but if he doesn't repent for 2003 then he can keep his endorcement.

The MSM seem to think that black political people have to endorse their own and if they don't somehow something's wrong.

Amen... (0.00 / 0)

From what we know, Powell had an uncomfortable time trying to do his job as Secretary of State. He was undermined by Cheney and Rumsfield and continually harassed for supposed "disloyalty" by Bush.

The 03 UN speech was a sacrifice of is integrity to demonstrate loyalty to Bush ... I think if he admits his stooginess then, he can be forgiven and his endorsement taken.

Otherwise, his endorsement should be duly noted without comment or gratitiude from the Obama team.

[ Parent ]
If Powell is going to endorse Obama (4.00 / 1)
Then we need to get someone like Bill Ayers or Jane Fonda to endorse McCain.

So disengenuous for Powell to wait until Obama was so far ahead with just over 2 weeks to go to endorse. As always, he lets others make the first move and take all the risks (lots of conservatives jumped on the Obama bandwagon months ago), then goes with the side that he believes will prevail. Even his autobiography, which I've read, makes it quite clear that he's a risk-averse and ass-kissing opportunist with the character of a Tallyrand.

And no doubt he wants and expects Obama to take it easy on him if there's ever an Iraq war reckoning, and maybe appoint him as ambassador or some kind of czar.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Like a Blister, Shows up when Work's Done (4.00 / 4)
Colin Powell is only worried about himself.

He could have stood up to help correct his Iraq mistake, but he's oh so quiet. (He didn't have a problem sabotaging Clinton's Don't Ask Don't Tell despite saying he was on board).

And now he waits until the end to endorse Obama? How about doing that say 2 months ago when it would have been slightly courageous, something of a help.

Now that Obama appears to have this wrapped up short of a catastrophe, Colin Powell will finally walk in and bless the candidate? Screw him.

(And no, I haven't been much of an Obama fan, but Powell is not on my like list).

Powell is Poison for Obama's Well (4.00 / 1)

I argue that for Obama's own good, General Powell ought not to endorse the Senator.
reality check: colin powell is a doof who got it wrong. but if it helps us peel off McCain votes, then good. (0.00 / 0)
Let's just hope that lying to press someone else's dumb war isn't contagious, some sort of endorsement-borne virus.
No, not a "doof" (4.00 / 1)
He's a disgusting liar who, in your name and mine, lied to the world in order begin the disaster known as the Invasion of, followed by the Occupation of, Iraq. Colin Powell should be shamed out of public speaking rather than being thought of as a prized endorsement for Obama.

The man lied in your name and mine. Get this man away from me and away from anything having to do with Obama. I despise Colin Powell.  

[ Parent ]
yep, he's also a liar. but if republicans respect him and he caves into Obama (0.00 / 0)
then I'm not complaining. in a way, that's a mea culpa: one of the leading cheerleaders for the war who has come to regret it endorses someone who got it right from the start.

i believe in redemption. slow and difficult redemption sometimes. but redemption. i never shut the door.

[ Parent ]
I don't have much use for Powell either... (0.00 / 0)
...but I don't think we're going to get anywhere by calling for him to be shunned from public life.  Let's remember that Joe Biden supported the war as well, and he's on the actual ticket.  Certainly Biden didn't make a presentation at the UN that played a large part in convincing people to support the war, but he was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the runup to the period where the Congressional resolution authorizing the war was passed, and he was its ranking member after the '02 election.  

Biden had more than a bit of influence, and while it would be unfair to describe his role as "cheerleading" for the administration or anything like that, he certainly made it easier for them to go to war at a time when he quite possibly could have made it harder (maybe even a lot harder).  That sucks, but throwing all of our darts at Powell doesn't change the fact that an Iraq war supporter is on his way to becoming Obama's VP.  Not to go all Krauthammer on y'all, but I think there's some psychological re-direction going on here, where people are aiming everything at someone else at least in part because they can't aim any of it at our own ticket.  

The Due Process of History (4.00 / 2)
As one who usually admires David's self righteous clarity of mission, here he shows even me the fallacy of certitude in the face of relativism.  Don't get me wrong, I suspect that in a final analysis I would agree with David that there is no decent justification for Powell's part in leading America to war.  The issue here is timing.  There is plenty of time to assess Powell's motives and to judge his part in history.  Why do it when he is on the verge of doing something good and when it makes no difference?  That Powell's actions may have been intolerable is not the issue here.  This is not the stage on which that issue will be adjudicated.  Demanding judgment here is the sort of needless shrieking that suggests a fundamentalist's amplitude of intolerance, not to Powell's acts of warmongering, but to a diversity or subtlety of thought  and the due process of history.
Bringing up Powell's perfidy now (0.00 / 0)
is important. I hate it when the past keeps getting buried. Powell needs to be exposed as often as necessary to keep revisionism from whitewashing him. No pun intended. Belefonte got him right from the get go.
[ Parent ]
Powell (0.00 / 0)
No question but that his cowardly actions helped lead us into war. His endiorsement of Obama may give us some satisfaction. Maybe he'll apologize, too. But all things considered, it will be largely irrelevant, maybe one news cycle worth of excitement but no votes changed.
I so agree with you David... (4.00 / 1)
Powell was the only person in that admin. I could remotely stand.  He lied to us, and he knew he was lying to us.  He is not a stupid man by any stretch.  No one needs 'proof' that he lied, anyone with half a brain knows it.  So...that leaves the 'independents' and repubs.  They may well be very impressed that powell is endorsing Obama.  It may get him a few more votes.  I say...great.  We will take all we can get.  The people who know powell is an immoral coward are going to vote for Obama anyway.  We can sit back, except their votes, and laugh all the way to the WhiteHouse!!
Thanks David -- with you all the way on this one n/t (4.00 / 1)
It is true that Powell's testimony got us into an inappropriate war (4.00 / 1)
BUT - what if Powell endorses McCain?

I mean - consider the weight of that endorsement.  Liberals who were never ever going to vote for McCain won't care - but independents, who still like Powell, who appreciate Powell's apology for his role in the roll-out to the Iraq War, will accept this as a bit of gravitas added to a McCain campaign that has seemed silly since the addition of Palin.

It would be quite a blow.

In that sense - we are certainly better off for a Powell endorsement than without.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



I don't think he'll ever endorse McCain (0.00 / 0)
I'm not saying he wouldn't vote for him, but I just can't see him giving a public endorsement. There's the Palin factor (among other things). He'd have to be crazy to come out in support of that ticket. It's not as if he's in the public eye like he used to be. What could he possibly gain from coming out and endorsing them (after leading a private life for the past few years)? There's too much incentive to remain neutral.

It's weird how much the media is pushing stories about Colin Powell. There are plenty of prominent people who haven't made public endorsements. I agree with the posters who believe it's all about race. I'd never heard a word about a relationship between Barack Obama and Powell until the former began to run for President. Now, we're all waiting to see if Powell will endorse Obama.

I realize the situation is complicated by the fact that Powell left the Bush administration. People assume that he's turned his back on those policies, that he's rejected Bush (and, logically, would reject the Bush-like John McCain). However plenty of "moderate" white Republicans  haven't endorsed Obama, either. No one's writing stories about them.

[ Parent ]
Powell gets the most attention (0.00 / 0)
However plenty of "moderate" white Republicans  haven't endorsed Obama, either. No one's writing stories about them.

But...there has been quite bit of speculation made of whether or not Hagel, and also Lugar, might endorse Obama. Not to the extent of what is being made about Powell, but still.

[ Parent ]
I realize that, (0.00 / 0)
but those guys are Senators still in public office. They're expected to publicly endorse their party's candidate and maybe even campaign for him (at least before he chose crazy Sarah Palin). Powell is a relatively private citizen now.

The Hagel situation is a bit complicated because he's essentially done the same thing as Powell (expressed dissatisfaction with the Bush administration). Before Palin (when people were still pretending John McCain was a moderate), I don't remember reading specualtion about whether Hagel would endorse Obama.

[ Parent ]
I meant to add (to the first paragraph) (0.00 / 0)
that it's a bit suspicious when sitting members of Congress don't come out in support of their party's candidate.

I meant to write


I realize that, but those guys are Senators still in public office. They're expected to publicly endorse their party's candidate and maybe even campaign for him (at least before he chose crazy Sarah Palin). It's a bit suspicious when sitting members of Congress (like Hagel and Lugar) don't come out in support of their party's candidate. Powell is a relatively private citizen now.

[ Parent ]
I don't think he is so debased that he could do that. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Ted Stevens (4.00 / 1)
If there is any question about Colin Powell, the fact that gave character witness for the indisputably unethical Senator Ted Stevens should be the proof he is not credit worthy
He sucks. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
This is a total aside - BUT (0.00 / 0)
The sky is not blue.

The sky is a mirror, reflecting the oceans - which are blue.  When you look at a red dress in a mirror, you don't say the mirror is red, you say the dress is red.

Of course, I take your point on Powell and I agree with it completely.  Powell has become this big, mythological "get" obsession of the media - "whom will Powell endorse" - but we can hardly be surprised that the same MSM which swallowed the obvious bunko line that a nation which had lost a war and been throttled with economic sanctions for a decade was still the gravest threat to our continued existence on the planet.

This "Powell Endorsement" is a game played by the "in-crowd" (more like those who like to think of themselves as in) and should be ignored by those who believe in the value of independent thought.

A Note About Colin Powell... | 76 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox