Monday, October 20, 2008

Powell endorses Obama

General Colin Powell is a man that I respect and admire very much. He is one of the most decorated military leaders in modern American history, and you don’t get to that point by being a dishonorable man. So when Rush Limbaugh says that he can’t think of any “inexperienced, white liberal candidates” that Powell has endorsed, I take exception. He is basically accusing the General of racism, and racism is dishonorable. Powell is career military, and the military has a zero tolerance policy on racism; plus battlefield commanders – more than anyone else – know that we all bleed red. I find Limbaugh’s comments in very poor taste. I think Powell would have endorsed just about any Democrat candidate this year and I have my reasons for thinking this.

First, Powell is not a Republican. He hasn’t said or done anything to give me the impression of GOP loyalty. Plus, you’ll find that most military folks are not partisan either way, and many have voted for both parties at one point or another. Powell is a moderate and he seems to me to lean Left on most things, including foreign policy. He served as Bush’s SecState because Bush ran as a moderate and because Powell served under his father, and obviously respected the elder Bush very much. Bush Sr was a moderate on foreign policy…he stopped short of Baghdad for a reason and you can bet that Powell was in agreement. The notion of furthering combat, perhaps unnecessarily, was something that Powell would never agree to. Ditto for pre-emptive military action.

You see, in history there are basically two kinds of military commanders. The first is the hawk, the bloodthirsty leader who likes nothing more than combat. He is aggressive, relentless, and often looked at as egotistical. Think of Patton, MacArthur, Napoleon. The other is the dove, the general who hates to see blood spilled for any reason and absolutely despises war. He recognizes that combat is sometimes necessary but will avoid it whenever possible and will end it as soon as possible. Names like Lee, Eisenhower and, yes, Washington come to mind. I also place Powell in the latter group. Keep in mind that I don’t think one type of general is any better than the other. Instead, I think the context is the deciding factor. In times of peace, I want the dove commanding the army. But if you’re facing extermination and literally fighting for survival, then I want Patton out front.

Something else came to mind when I heard of Powell’s endorsement. This was no surprise to me, since I don’t think of Powell as a Republican, but I still couldn’t help but think of George Pickett after Gettysburg when he said of Lee, “That old man destroyed my division.” You see, generals have very special regard for the troops they command, and even though Powell was no longer commanding the troops he still felt connected to them. Every life lost in Iraq was taken personally, and I don’t think Powell will ever forgive Bush for it.

Powell does not believe in pre-emptive military action. That’s just the sense that I get from him. And I honestly don’t think George W Bush was a pre-emptive war kind of guy either, since his father wasn’t the type. But 9/11 changed a lot of things, including Bush’s own foreign policy, and this is where he and Powell eventually split. He decided that pre-emptive action was better than waiting to respond to an actual attack. I get the sense that Powell still disagrees. Yes, Powell argued the case against Iraq to the UN, but I felt he did this against his better judgment. And when Bush sided with Rumsfeld on how to handle post-war security, Powell was done. He wanted no further part of it. Again, he is honorable, and it’s hard for an honorable person to support something they don’t believe in. It’s no secret why he left after Bush’s first term.
To put it simply, Obama will not continue Bush’s policy of pre-emptive strikes, McCain will, and that’s why Powell endorsed Obama. Make of that what you will. On that matter, I will respectfully disagree with the General and continue to always wish him well with a deep sense of appreciation for his service to our country.


allison said...

I thought that his statements on Meet the Press were extremely well-put, he made a lot of important comments and had very good reasoning for everything he said. I especially liked that he cited McCain's choice of Palin as VP as a reason to doubt his judgement, because it's about time someone who is not a "liberal" said that in public. Also noteworthy was his distaste with recent events and the "narrowing," as he put it, of the campaign's arguments and attacks. I don't consider myself radical in my thinking or my views, and I thought he hit many of my sentiments spot on.


A Fine General Officer. He had a disagreement with Rumsfeld, and that's another story. Obama's been
courting him, for military advise, for months. Slick!

If Colin Powell were the Democratic nominee, the majority of voters in both parties would accept him without hesitation. It's the measure of a Great American...Qualified to lead a Great Nation. Compare him to that Chicago slicker, with his double-dealing "friends" like Ayers, Resko and Jeremiah Wright...and Jew-baiting Farrakhan!

Bush & Rumsfeld soured Powell's judgement; he feels betrayed. Sad.


allison said...

Obama is not FRIENDS with Ayers! Would you just get over that already? You are making a mountain out of a mole hill, and several sources from both sides of the aisle have said that they are NOT FRIENDS, they have associated in the past but do not have a strong relationship. Get over it!

Anonymous said...


I remain amazed that in nearly every circumstance, you can look at an issue and draw the wrong conclusion.

Bush and Rumsfeld did not "sour" Powell's judgment. What they did was to sully his honor and integrity by having him go in front of the U.N. Genreal Assembley and make a case for was that, unbeknownst to Powell, was not predicated on facts.


Well put although the concept of preemptive action has now become associted w/ the invasion of Iraq.

I believe George H.W. Bush when he said he stopped short of Bahgdad b/c he had no exit strategy. This remains one of the major problems w/ the war in Iraq--no exit strategy. The difficulties of occupying Iraq were obvious to anyone who is familiar w/ the country and its people. In essence, Iraq was a poor choice to employ the policy of preemptive action. That poor choice was compounded by poor strategy regarding rebuilding and occupation and the fact that Iraq never posed a serious threat to our national security or that of our alliees in the region. A threat, yes. A serious threat, no.

The world has changed in some ways since 9/11 and has remained unchanged in others. B/c of Iraq, the policy of preemptive action will be much more difficult to employ from a political perspective.




Not friends with W.C. Ayers?
Not friends with Tony Resko?
Not friends with Rev Wright?
Not friends with Father Plueger?
Not Friends with Louie Farrakhan?
Not Friends with PLO's Khalidi?

"Just guys in the neighborhood"


Anonymous said...

Be afraid...
Be very afraid.

Have another drink pof your own bathwater, reb. Keep pretending it's vintage champagne.

If you don't mind, I won't have a glass.



Oh yes, one more thing. It seems entirely possible that Barack Obama may win the election. I am not making a prediction, mind you, I am just sensing what is possible.
If Obama wins, what are you going to do? Tear yourself in two like Rumpelstiltskin?

John Washburn said...

Allison, Obama wrote an endorsement for Bill Ayer's book and it was published. You don't do that for someone who is not considered a friend. Put down the kool-aid, it is poisonous.

Auntyem said...


If the book he endorsed was only about education, and Obama knows Ayers only as an educator that sits on the same boards along with others, some Republicans, then how can you say he is a "friend"? Maybe they have the same publisher and the publisher requested that Obama endorse the book.

This demonizing of Obama has no limits. I just followed the posts on the blog of one of your new posters, Nanny, and she lifted an article from God knows where about all of Obama's supposed transgressions, but what took the cake for me was this quote from one of the articles that she edited (this quote is from the complete article on )----"We err when assuming our leaders are chosen by us through the electoral process; the mantra that 'America is the freest country in the world and anyone can be president' is not true. To the contrary, our leaders are 'created' from Illuminati bloodlines and their lives are scripted through convoluted stories and false documents---all of which is facilitated by incalculable wealth and political power".

The article accuses Obama of being a homo, drug addict, and murderer, born in some island not Hawaii due to his black lips, etc, etc. It makes him sound like the Devil himself. People want to demonize him so badly that they will lift all kinds of crap from the deranged musings of a bunch of nuts online. This in itself is evil.

I was fascinated by this mention of "Illuminati bloodlines" so I googled the term. Good grief, among the 13 main Illuminati, they mention the Krupps, the Reynolds, the Astors, all the major capitalists that have driven the world economy. They even included Walt Disney because his cartoons always supposedly deal with black cats, ghosts, other creatures of the night. Give me a break. Maybe next they will say he came from an evil planet to destroy the world.

Port Orchard, WA