Former GOP Secretary of State "endorses" Obama

[DeletedUser3]

And there it is ---> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57539893/

In a move that is likely to turn a few Republicans, Retired commanding General of the hugely successful 1991 Iraq war, and former Secretary of State (2001-2004) to George Bush Jr., has once again publicly endorsed President Obama (he previously endorsed then-candidate Obama in the 2008 election).

While not likely to create the tidal wave of support that pulled many military personnel to vote for Obama in 2008, it may nonetheless swing many undecided active and veteran military.

Your thoughts?

 

[DeletedUser34]

I think at this stage in the election, there are very few if any undecideds. Those that do exist have already made up their minds but will not commit in the hope that Romney will pull a hat trick some how. But while holding our breaths waiting, we don't hold out for great expectations....

 

[DeletedUser]

I think at this stage in the election, there are very few if any undecideds. Those that do exist have already made up their minds but will not commit in the hope that Romney will pull a hat trick some how. But while holding our breaths waiting, we don't hold out for great expectations....

Romney is in trouble exactly for trying to pull too many tricks out of the hat. Excess "me too" budget promises just refuse to add up, no-one can pin down what he truly believes in (too many tricks and backflips) and President Obama has been covered in so much slippery mud that anything new slung at him will just slide straight off. Even if the campaign cut the crap with a "this is the real Mitt" approach, it would be too late to draw any credibility, too desperate to be believed. Hence he's now left with no alternative, nor are moderate conservatives according to Powell and so many others, yourself included of course.

While not likely to create the tidal wave of support that pulled many military personnel to vote for Obama in 2008, it may nonetheless swing many undecided active and veteran military.

Retired military I can see, respected commanders of the good ol' nostalgic yesteryear are putting their faith in the opposing party would cause peeps to think twice. (Large swing in Florida anyone?) Active military not so much, call me a Mr Njub but I would expect their votes to be influenced by the here and now, given it'll be their asses put at risk by the nation's foreign policy over the next four years. You'd hope they would be voting based on informed principle, not letting talk and hearsay control their vote.

 

[DeletedUser3]

An interesting thought. I suppose war mongering military folk, and those newbies hoping to "kill kill kill," will be more inclined to vote for Romney's promises of more "boots on the ground" bloodshed over Obama's promises of "faceless" drone wars.

 

[DeletedUser]

And there's a wonderful addition to this debate, in response to claims Powell "only" supported Obama due to his race:

"My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people -- not all of them, but most of them -- who are still basing their positions on race. Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable." ― Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (link)

Woo, moderates.

 

[DeletedUser]

Who cares, Powell is irrelevant. I don't know why Bush put him into State's slot anyway. Powell is a closet liberal and frankly can't be trusted. And he can say he doesn't support Obama because of his race all he likes, but I don't buy it. As a matter of fact, I would expect him to have sentiment toward another of his race. That doesn't bother me. That said, there are far better candidates of color (Thomas Sowell comes to mind off the top of my head) than Obama. What do we know about Obama? He was unknown until 2008. There are plenty of unanswered questions about the man that make me scratch my head and say "Why in hell did the people elect this​ clown?

 

[DeletedUser]

It might be easier to drop them all and vote for "Mickey Mouse". At least he is honest about being a rodent. The lesser of 2 evils is still "evil". "Long live Free Will!"

 

[DeletedUser]

Who cares, Powell is irrelevant. I don't know why Bush put him into State's slot anyway. Powell is a closet liberal and frankly can't be trusted. And he can say he doesn't support Obama because of his race all he likes, but I don't buy it. As a matter of fact, I would expect him to have sentiment toward another of his race. That doesn't bother me.

Hehe, closet liberal, cute. Is that how extremist conservatives choose to ostracise moderate conservatives these days, the old "you're either with us or against us" tactic. Nevertheless, do you have any evidence that Powell is a democrat, deliberately attempting to deceive? Powell's influence held alot of weight in the last election, if that's going to change I doubt it will be the result of any conspiracy theory.

What do we know about Obama? He was unknown until 2008. There are plenty of unanswered questions about the man that make me scratch my head and say "Why in hell did the people elect this​ clown?

The myths surrounding President Obama's birth certificate, nationality and religion have been firmly debunked.

 

[DeletedUser]

There are plenty of unanswered questions about the man that make me scratch my head and say "Why in hell did the people elect this​ clown?

So what did you do when Bush was elected, and then re-elected? Pull out your hair?

No one doubts that there are low-information voters that vote based solely or mostly on race. But to think that of Powell, who is incredibly respected and etc. is pretty demeaning.

What you need to know about Obama is already out there. All this nonsense about birth certificates, college diplomas, credentials, and more are irrelevant. No president in history has had to validate himself as much as Obama. Why is it that in an age where information is at our fingertips, it is harder than ever to get facts into peoples' heads? As for his track record, complaints about Obama as president will probably be more relevant when he starts to screw up as much as Bush did.

 

[DeletedUser34]

I disagree Daniel, I think it is becoming precedent Look at how much they were after Romney for his taxes. Different things, but just as nosy

 

[DeletedUser3]

Romney provided less info about his tax returns than almost all candidates since Kennedy, so there was ample reason to request his tax information, particularly when you consider how little he confessed to paying in taxes, his Swiss bank accounts, and his tax shelter in the Cayman Islands.

Anyway, Taliesin, did you vote for Bush because he was white? McCain because he was white? Are voting for Romney because he is white?

If your answer is no in any and/or all of those cases, then why do you assume an African American will vote based on pigmentation?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd also add that something like a tax return is more relevant information about a candidate than his/her birth certificate or diploma.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm, not sure about certificates of education (I'd like to know they're qualified at something), but indeed a tax return trumps a birth certificate.

 

[DeletedUser34]

i would clarify my point, and go into more detail about what I meant that probably didn't come out properly when I wrote the first time, but I have realized something...intent doesn't matter, and only exactly what I said will be the sole basis for judgement, so I see no point.

 

[Liberty]

I'd also add that something like a tax return is more relevant information about a candidate than his/her birth certificate or diploma.

I don't know about that for a couple of reasons. One, it is a constitutional requirement to be a natural-born citizen to be the President, and two, history has proven that members of our government are some of the biggest tax dodgers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html
http://voices.yahoo.com/obamas-cabinet-failure-pay-taxes-recurring-theme-2594319.html

- - - Updated - - -

And there it is ---> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57539893/

In a move that is likely to turn a few Republicans, Retired commanding General of the hugely successful 1991 Iraq war, and former Secretary of State (2001-2004) to George Bush Jr., has once again publicly endorsed President Obama (he previously endorsed then-candidate Obama in the 2008 election).

While not likely to create the tidal wave of support that pulled many military personnel to vote for Obama in 2008, it may nonetheless swing many undecided active and veteran military.

Your thoughts?

I'm still stuck at the point that you called what happened in Iraq, successful.

 

[DeletedUser]

A global poll doing the rounds indicates the only country who prefers Romney as president over Obama is Pakistan. Considering it is generally accepted the Taliban is sourced from there and they are the No.1 US bogeymen, perhaps it's a joke or something sinister.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Hi Liberty,

Either ur post is an attempt to derail the discussion, or you didn't read my post. In any event, I'll give this a short derail and then we can get back on point.

I was referring to the 1991 Gulf war, the first Iraq conflict the U.S. engaged in. Their mission was to liberate Kuwait, and yes they were hugely successful in that mission. In their great ground war, the largest tank battle in history, the U.S. military (and coalition forces) destroyed over 3,700 Soviet-made tanks controlled by the Iraqi Republican Guard (Iraq's elite unit) and almost all of their armored vehicles, without a "single" tank loss on the U.S./Coalition side. And, they did it in less than 100 hours. Prior to that, the U.S./Coalition Air assault had wiped out the Iraqi air force and obliterated almost all other Iraqi military units and defense systems.

By the time Bush Sr. called an end to the conflict, the Iraqi military had been decimated and the first two objectives (the two that Colin Powell participated in and led in the role of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) were completed with minimal U.S./Coalition losses.

 

[Liberty]

Either ur post is an attempt to derail the discussion, or you didn't read my post. In any event, I'll give this a short derail and then we can get back on point.

I was referring to the 1991 Gulf war, the first Iraq conflict the U.S. engaged in. Their mission was to liberate Kuwait, and yes they were hugely successful in that mission. In their great ground war, the largest tank battle in history, the U.S. military (and coalition forces) destroyed over 3,700 Soviet-made tanks controlled by the Iraqi Republican Guard (Iraq's elite unit) and almost all of their armored vehicles, without a "single" tank loss on the U.S./Coalition side. And, they did it in less than 100 hours. Prior to that, the U.S./Coalition Air assault had wiped out the Iraqi air force and obliterated almost all other Iraqi military units and defense systems.

By the time Bush Sr. called an end to the conflict, the Iraqi military had been decimated and the first two objectives (the two that Colin Powell participated in and led in the role of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) were completed with minimal U.S./Coalition losses.

No offense, Hellstrom, but seriously, who cares? One warmonger endorsing another warmonger. Hurray for the military-industrial complex. Cha-ching. They win regardless of whether Obama or Romney gets elected. It's we lowly American citizens who lose.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Powell is no warmonger. He opposed the second Iraq war and the attack of Afghanistan. In fact, he was in strong opposition to the warmongering actions and intentions of the neoconservatives, referring to them as, "<expletive> crazies." Indeed, when Obama was considering a surge in Afghanistan, Powell called him and recommended against it.

Moving past that little paint job you're trying to pose, Obama is likewise not a warmonger, having extricated the U.S. from Rumsfeld's war in Iraq and exiting Bush Jr's war in Afghanistan, Obama likewise posed only temporary and limited assistance to the rebels in the Libya, using only air support. The French and British participated first. The goal in that situation, where the U.S. assisted, was limited to protecting civilians from Ghadaffi's threat that he would kill everyone in the city, rebels and innocent civilians alike.

It's an interesting tactic of yours nonetheless, to detract from Powell's support by claiming he's a warmonger. His military record is extensive, but I would hardly call it a warmonger's record. He entered the military during Vietnam as a lieutenant, suffered an injury when he stepped on a punji stick, and returned later for a second tour, where he singlehandedly saved the lives of nine soldiers from a downed helicopter (one of them being a commanding general). His participation in humanitarian efforts during his later years in te military earned him many medals from foreign countries.

Moving on, his departure from Bush Jr's cabinet was the direct result of his strong and continuous opposition to the ongoing conflicts, the lies he had been given that he in turn had posed to the U.N., and the lies that the Bush administration repeatedly posed to the American people. Powell's interests have been honorable throughout much of his career, focused primarily on the best interest of the nation, not on personal or political objectives.

 

[DeletedUser]

You guys are funny. Election will be decided today and it's quite clear who's going to win, Barry Obama.

Here's the ad that won it all:
[video=youtube;EDxOSjgl5Z4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDxOSjgl5Z4&amp;feature=share&amp;list=UUa6vGFO9ty 8v5KZJXQxdhaw[/video]