IN THE COMMENTS: Triangle Man said:
The third-to-last show is the antepenultimate show.
Antepenultimate is an anagram of:
Team Planet Unite
The rest is obvious.
October 17, 2008
Is Colin Powell about to endorse Obama?
He'll be on "Meet the Press" this Sunday, and why else would they book him on the third-to-the-last show before the election?
IN THE COMMENTS: Triangle Man said:
IN THE COMMENTS: Triangle Man said:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
137 comments:
When a black man just has to vote for someone because of the color of their skin . . . .
Well, duh. Too bad his wife was such a chicken shit - Obama has proven that a black, or half black, man can run for president without being killed. Way to miss an opportunity, Powell.
Is there a D version of the RINO?
Blue-dog Democrat doesn't quite convey the same contempt.
-XC
Or, he's going to endorse McCain. Or Bob Barr. Or no one. But I see the McCain campaign is playing down the expectations so either way, they can win. If they're right, they called it. If they're wrong, no one will remember because Powell endorsed McCain.
why else would they book him on the third-to-the-last show before the election?
I can't think of any other reason than an Obama endorsement. It's not like the guy was Secretary of State recently.
Remember, he was replaced by a woman. That's gotta sting.
(sarcasm alert)
. . . and not just a woman, but a blck woman. THAT's really got to smart.
Isn't it possible that if Powell ends up endorsing Obama, it would be not because he's black but because he thinks he's the better candidate this time around?
And shouldn't we actually wait and see not only if he endorses Obama, but what his argument will be if he does so, before criticizing him for it?
Lorelei,
spoken like someone liberal enough to want tot sit through all of Oliver Stone's movies.
Also, it seems a little silly to assume that the bookers of MTP have received assurances in advance from Colin Powell that he would endorse on the program.
So the question is why else he would want to do that edition of MTP, not why else they would have him on.
Doyle wrote: I can't think of any other reason than an Obama endorsement. It's not like the guy was Secretary of State recently.
Maybe he'll explain what happened to those mobile biowarfare labs.
Well for an alcoholic cab driver, Curveball was damn convincing.
Lorelei Leigh said...
[something about waiting for actual information]
Oh please! Stop with your reasonable suggestions. Now is the time for fretful hand wringing and hysterical rhetoric!
no one will remember because Powell endorsed McCain
Really? Is that the script? I would be shocked if Powell endorsed McCain.
henry said...
Maybe he'll explain what happened to those mobile biowarfare labs.
Those were clearly EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicles.
Oh come on. He just recently testified in court on the fine character of that slime ball Sen. Stevens. Why would he now endorse Obama? He's a liberal republican through and through. If he endorses anyone, I'll bet it will be John McCain.
Polls show that 92% of Colin Powell is planning to vote for Obama.
He is announcing that he is leaving Alma and marring Madonna.
Powell is a soldier; as such he will very likely take the path of least resistance.. the one only known to him.
His halo would be enhanced by an Obama endorsement – but what if Obama looses?
But then again it’s not like Republicans are going to cast him to hell fire if endorses Obama.
The safe bet is an Obama endorsement and the ambassadorship to France or Japan.
Powell endorsing Obama? What's next the NYT endorsing him?
He was generally discounted by many of the same people who will make a BFD out of his endorsement.
spoken like someone liberal enough to want tot sit through all of Oliver Stone's movies.
Wrong. Not that it matters. Your opinion doesn't mean very much to me.
why else would they book him on the third-to-the-last show before the election?
NBC? Nahhhh.
Then we're both agreed.
I'm not saying it isn't going to happen, but can we wait until he actually endorses Obama before we slam/praise the guy (over that issue, I mean)?
The Obama camp must get the army of Joe's off the news cycle, this would do it.
Powell carries little political weight other than the symbolism of race as he's been painted by the MSM and African-American establishment as a failed statesman/Bush Toady/Uncle Tom.
BTW- The Japanese may not be too keen on a General/JCOS as ambassador.
J,
No.
McCain seems very pleased lately; maybe he knows something we dont.
Either way Powell is the October surprise.
Oh please! Stop with your reasonable suggestions. Now is the time for fretful hand wringing and hysterical rhetoric!
Righ, then. My mistake. Carry on.
I think Colin Powell will go on Meet the Press and maintain his cruel neutrality.
Spread Eagle said...why else would they book him on the third-to-the-last show before the election?
NBC? Nahhhh.
NBC = National Barack Channel.
lorelei is the self-elected schoolmarm.
Self-righteous twit.
I'll wait with Lorelei.
I agree with Seven - if he endorses McCain, that would be volcanic, especially if he does the one thing that McCain has to do and won't: throw Bush under the bus. Powell could single-handedly eviscerate the "McSame" meme by saying "look, George W. Bush is totally incompetent, and I can't stand the man because he made me look like an idiot by giving me information that he knew was false that I took in good faith. If he was on the ballot, I'd vote against him, and honestly, I've thought about punching him on the nose. But Bush isn't running. And I'm voting for John McCain, because despite what you've heard from Senator Obama, John McCain isn't George Bush." That kind of declaration would be huge.
Alas, while my heart wants to agree with Skyler, I have to suspect that Lem is correct. I think it's unfortunate, but I'm not surprised, and if he does, I don't think it's necessarily about race so much as misplaced residual anger from his treatment by Bush.
oooooooooo,
Colin Powell, who has taken several swipes at George W Bush in the media over the last 5 years, might possibly consider John McCain. Bullshit.
And I'll come back here and eat crow if he does.
But I won't have to.
By the way, have you seen a list of prominent American blacks who are endorsing McCain?
Hmmmmm. If not, why not?
by giving me information that he knew was false
Put up Simon.
Big surprise- 95% of blacks will vote for Obama, Powell is black, he's going to vote for Obama.
Personally, I'm more interested in seeing Palin on SNL tomorrow (if CNN's reporting is correct).
LL wrote: "Isn't it possible that if Powell ends up endorsing Obama, it would be not because he's black but because he thinks he's the better candidate this time around?"
Absolutely! It is my experience that blacks from a military background have much more racial security and tolerence than people who did not serve. YMMV.
And Mr. Powell is and has been an Arabist from the state department days. He will see Senator Obama's Arabist views as progressive.
Of course they are both wrong, but I think that Powell will vote because he agrees with Obama's wrong headed policies rather than because Obama is part black.
Trey
We hear about diversity day in and day out, but apparently there is none in the voting preferences of the black community.
Which makes you kind of shudder to imagine being a minority in a black majority America.
Count me in the lets wait and find out camp!
Hwtm said...
Colin Powell, who has taken several swipes at George W Bush in the media over the last 5 years, might possibly consider John McCain. Bullshit
So Powell does have reason to differ with Bush, particularly on issues of foreign policy and diplomacy, and McCain pledges to maintain a similar approach. However, if Powell breaks with the party line and endorses Obama, then it must be a black thing. Got it.
Rush mocked the media's caring what Colin Powell thought about things for about a year, a few years back.
Colin Powell is part of the MSM ratings game, in their repertoire of demented narratives.
As to Colin Powell's wife, I understand that she battles depression. It is difficult enough to put up with the scrutiny, dirty tricks, lies and manipulations that both side engage in without depression. With the depression and the tendency to despair and hopelessness that is part of the disorder, it would be hell for her.
While I dislike his politics, I admire General Powell as a soldier and an accomplished man. America is lucky to have him. My estimation of him as a man only grew when he decided to protect his wife from that process.
Trey
Put up Simon.
While Simon is certainly capable of answering himself, a careful reading of his comment shows that he isn't stating that as a fact, but as something that Powell could assert in order to help McCain.
If Powell does endorse Hussain Obama why should anyone be surprised?
Powell has never stated he was a conservative or even a moderate on domestic issues.
On FP, Obama seems more sane than McCain.
P.S. If Powell endorses Obama, it most certainly is a black thing. Powell knows full well who the best-qualified candidate is for foreign policy. He knows better than anyone here.
Except, of course, me.
Colin Powell is a good man. He's friends with both Obama and McCain.
I wish more people shared his moderation.
He is announcing that he is leaving Alma and marring Madonna.
Isn't Madonna already marred for life?
He should be leaving Alma and joining Mater.
On FP, Obama seems more sane than McCain.
You are delusional.
Host with the Most said...
"'by giving me information that he knew was false' Put up Simon."
You misunderstand me, I think -- I'm not saying that Bush knew that information was false. I'm saying that I think Powell believes that Bush knew the information was false.
"By the way, have you seen a list of prominent American blacks who are endorsing McCain? Hmmmmm. If not, why not?"
That's like the critique of Wesley Clark four years ago that if Clark's so good, why is it that almost none of his colleagues, the other four-stars, have endorsed him? That wasn't a very good talking point because the answer was so obvious: because almost all of those people were Republicans. It wasn't about Clark, it was that they weren't going to endorse a liberal. Likewise, I don't think it's unfair to say that most prominent American blacks are liberals, ergo they aren't going to endorse a conservative (or even a moderate like McCain). To test the proposition that they are endorsing "the Democratic candidate" rather than Barack Obama, consider this: was there a long list of prominent American blacks endorsing George W. Bush four years ago - or did the same folks now endorsing Obama endorse the lilly-white Kerry?
Sounds a bit odd that Powell might endorse Obama, guy with utterly zero understanding of the military, and a penchant for giving ill-considered orders to retreat.
I've never thought of Powell as a 'down with the brothers' kind of guy. Maybe he's looking for the SecDef billet in the Obama administration.
P.S., what trey said at 11:08.
Even if it makes my bad joke more tasteless.
triangle Man,
I confess that the black thing angle is only meant for humor and provocation.
Colin Powell is an American hero.
Personally, I have never liked him politically, not even during his stint in the first Bush's Presidency. But I recognize that he is a great American. And, his wife's condition should be out of bounds.
I hoenstly believe that Powell differs so much with W - and not with GHW - that he will have no problem defending his reasons to support Obama.
Powell might be a squeamish loser who talked the first Bush into quitting a war in the middle of winning it, taking all the credit from the field commander for what limited success there was despite his efforts to lose it.
There's nothing to indicate that he has changed stripes and is now a communist supporting democrat. As a general officer back in the 80's and 90's, he is more knowlegeable than most on the evils of communism. I can't see him endorsing Obama at all.
Unless Obama agrees to except him from the oncoming war crimes investigations that will be launched if he is elected.
Reading down the thread, I see no reason to criticize Lorelei Leigh for her posts. Her point was germane and well made as far as I read. I am missing any reason to criticize her post. Disagree with it, sure, but criticize? Not so much.
Wide eyed liberals do not wait for data, they parrot talking points. LL posted nothing objectionable or attacking until Host jumped her, and then she gave as good as she got. I would bet she is a fair minded centrist who tends to vote Democratic because she believes in government social programs because she is a kind hearted person. That is the kind of person you can have a discussion with.
So I hope she sticks around and continues to post.
Trey
Of course Powell will get far more MSM coverage, but which will be the subject of more water-cooler conversation on Monday, Palin on SNL or Powell on MTP?
I suspect more people will watch the online clips of Palin's appearance than of Powell's.
As always Ann provided the key insight.
why else would they book him on the third-to-the-last show before the election?
The third-to-last show is the antepenultimate show.
Antepenultimate is an anagram of:
Team Planet Unite
The rest is obvious.
Team Planet Unite? Si puede! Workers of the world, unite!
If McCain were up 5 points in the polls instead of down, I don't think Powell would be making this endorsement.
If McCain were up 5 points in the polls instead of down, I don't think Powell would be making this endorsement.
Truly a brilliant cocktail party thing to say because you are right either way. I'll definitely be using that one this weekend.
The only way I can see a McCain endorsement is in a word "loyalty"
If some of you recall, during the Joe Wilson (my CIA wife was outed) mess there was no retribution, recriminations or anything of the like. When it was discovered that Powell knew all along who outed Plame.
Nobody from the WH pointed the finger at Powell.
BTW - That was not the only time Powell has – shall we say – messed up.
McCain is uncontrollable 72 year old hot head - I don't want his finger anywhere near the nuclear button.
Nor do I want to bomb Iran, get into a new Cold War with Russia, attack North Korea, or stay 100 years in Iraq.
Obama's a better bet on FP.
I would agree with your points Simon, but I am concerned with the larger black populace. Not one black conservative that I personally know - through work, community, church, - and that number is over 50 - is planning to vote for McCain.
This last weekend, at a wedding reception, the most conservative black woman I know - my wife's former college roommate - excitedly talked up Obama's candidacy and presidency. After listening silently for over 10 minutes, she looked me straight in the eye and said "you're having a hard time with this aren't you?" When I said I just don't get her excitement and effective abandonment of her political/spiritual beliefs, she in effect answered (politely)that I didn't get it because I'm not black. I smiled, excused myself to head to the bar, andfound my way to another table, leaving my wife to enjoy her friend without me for the rest of the reception.
This same friend is planning on visiting the weekend before the election (she lives two states away). My wife is thrilled. Me, not so much.
Skyler, that's an interesting point. We can say with 99% certainty - and it honestly bemuses me that Althouse evidently doesn't agree - that the Obama administration will mount investigations and very likely prosecutions of former Bush administration officials, their supporters, people in the CIA and the military, and so forth, particularly in connection with the invasion of Iraq. Obama has said it, Biden has said it, their base have been demanding it for years. At absolute minimum, expect the "truth and reconciliation" commission that Dahlia Lithwick talked about here.
So why would Powell be exempt from such an investigation? After all, he's the one who talked the United Nations into giving the Chimperator cover for his illegal war for blood/oil/empire/&c., right? In Powell does endorse Obama, perhaps we should assume it was in terrorem: he's cut a deal with Obama in exchange for guaranteed immunity from the Lithwick Commission?
MadisonMan said...
[...]
Isn't Madonna already marred for life?
He should be leaving Alma and joining Mater.
11:11 AM
Genius!
"she in effect answered (politely)that I didn't get it because I'm not black."
She was right.
Iran. We will eventually be at war with Iran unless there is a regime change there.
Russia. How could there be another Cold War when Russia has no international ambitions? Do you understand history?
North Korea. We are currently at war with North Korea, and have been since roughly 1953. The 40,000 American soldiers on the border right now attest to that.
Iraq. We will have a military presence in Iraq in 100 years, much like our presence in Germany and Korea now.
All of this is true regardless of who becomes president. The question is: do you want Obama to screw things up and make life that much harder for future presidents, and soldiers?
triangle man, your 11:17 comment is fabulous!
Disregard comment immediately above. I've got to stop commenting while steamed.
Trey,
Reading down the thread, I see no reason to criticize Lorelei Leigh for her posts
My first "criticism" was a joke, in reference to Lorelei's planning to see "W", which she stated in this thread
I expected her to get the joke, but she not only didn't, SHE then dissed me. I only gave back more of the same.
But I did start it.
Trey, thanks for the support.
Perhaps my post wasn't clear. I don't have a problem with criticizing Powell for endorsing Obama. I object to:
1. Doing it now, when we don't even know if he will or not.
2. Saying that the only reason he'll do so is because Obama's black, especially since we haven't heard any endorsement yet, let along the justification for an endorsement.
I guess I would call myself a centrist, though I lean more to the right than the left. I have never voted for a Democratic candidate for President, and I won't be doing so this time around either. And I would never parrot liberal talking points because to do that, I would have to read them first.
In a normal world, I shouldn't have to say all of this just to get some people to take me seriously. But that's ok. This is the internet, and I can take it.
I will certainly continue to comment if I have something to say.
Here's what I want to know: who is this guy going to endorse?
McCain would be better on FP than Obama.
McCain is for free trade, Obama isn't.
Obama will piss off our allies with his anti-trade stance. The guy's already pissed off Canada.
As for our enemies, who do they fear Obama or McCain.
Peter -- You've got to think he's an Obama supporter. He looked at that burger and said, Yes we can! Plus, he's going to need free medical care.
My first "criticism" was a joke, in reference to Lorelei's planning to see "W", which she stated in this thread
I expected her to get the joke, but she not only didn't, SHE then dissed me. I only gave back more of the same.
Well, pardon me for not getting the joke, which not only wasn't funny, but also isn't factually accurate. I'm not "liberal" at all, and even if I were, my comment was only pointing out my preference for being fair and waiting until after we hear all the facts before we start to criticize.
As for my going after you, I have no apology. Perhaps the general tone of your commentary here is just part of your schtick, or it's meant simply to get a rise out of people. I just don't find your commentary to be very useful, and find it just as unthoughtful as those liberal commenters everyone always complains about. I have no use to criticize them because they do not represent my side, but you do, and I don't think you do a very good job of it.
Still, you come across in this latest post as seemingly reasonable sounding, so perhaps we can just agree to disagree on this.
Skyler, that's an interesting point. We can say with 99% certainty - and it honestly bemuses me that Althouse evidently doesn't agree - that the Obama administration will mount investigations and very likely prosecutions of former Bush administration officials, their supporters, people in the CIA and the military, and so forth, particularly in connection with the invasion of Iraq.
As usual, you and Syler display gross ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. I doubt, as much as I personally would like to see them, that there will be any kind of investigations, let alone charges, for war crimes during the Bush administration. But if there were they would be, not for the invasion of Iraq, but for torture and other specific incidents of detainee abuse. There is absolutely no evidence that Powell was in any way connected with suggesting or approving abusive interrogation and detention practices.
Plus, he's going to need free medical care.
As a retired Army officer, he already gets it.
for torture and other specific incidents of detainee abuse
Wow, Fred talks sense. It's good to see. It's got to be axiomatic that the closer you come to power, the more responsible you become, at least relatively.
Also, Fred, isn't it fair to say that the abusers have been punished for the abuse we know about? I mean, how far up the management chain are you wanting to go?
P.S. Yeah, Fred, but let's be honest: military hospitals are not that good.
And I promise to stop talking about everything but Powell right after this but isn't it funny how the Democrats are shocked -- shocked! -- about the state of our V.A. hospitals and at the same time want to make all health care just like them?
If it was Republicans, you'd surely call us stupid hicks for such thoughts.
As for "Free Trade". We should have Trade treaties to benefit the USA, not make our "allies" happy.
McCain thinks differently. His comment on Columbia was typical. They're our "friend", so we need to reward them with a trade treaty.
Like his support for massive foreign aid - its all about making other countries happy and if we get the short end of the stick, who cares? McCain has no sympathy for those who Lose their jobs due to free trade - they can just go back to Community College as stated in the debate.
"Host with the Most said...
J,
No."
Fair enough. This is a blog comment thread, after all.
And then RC shows his fundamental misunderstanding economics as well.
What we need are treaties that allow us to sell our stuff to other countries but don't allow other countries to sell their stuff in ours. Surely Columbia, where ever that is, will accept such a lark. Right?
If he endorses Obama it will have the after effect of tefloning away the Uncle Tom moniker he's been pegged with.
Free medical care for retired officers is not quite accurate. After retirement, if there is a military facility nearby you get space available care; or you may get VA care if your point score is high enough; there is also a Champus-Tricare option that has a copay. Since McCain over 65 he has to sign up for medicare; but since he is on the gold-plated congressional plan, I suspect thats the one he uses.
The free medical care for retired officers (or any military retiree) need considerably more "nuance" that was provided.
Also, Fred, isn't it fair to say that the abusers have been punished for the abuse we know about? I mean, how far up the management chain are you wanting to go?
Absolutely not. A few low level soldiers have been punished, and not one commissioned officer. Also, no one connected with the CIA has even been disciplined as far as we know (even though we know that the very night of the infamous Abu Gharaib pictures, CIA contractors beat a detainee to death).
We know that practices that this country has considered torture in the past (including water boarding, stress positions, the use of extreme temperatures, prolonged sleep deprivation) were authorized and justified at the highest levels of the administration. The President, Vice President, Rumsfeld, lower level civilians at DoD (e.g., Stephen Cambone), and certainly at CIA authorized practices that arguably violate domestic and international law and treaties to which we are a party.
If he endorses Obama it will have the after effect of tefloning away the Uncle Tom moniker he's been pegged with.
Exactly, which is why there is a 99.99999% chance he'll endorse The One.
Fred -- If it was authorized by the president, and if the president had the authority to authorize it, which he most assuredly did, then it's law. You can't punish what's legal.
And I promise to stop talking about everything but Powell right after this but isn't it funny how the Democrats are shocked -- shocked! -- about the state of our V.A. hospitals and at the same time want to make all health care just like them?
Speaking of delusional. How is this even a remote consequence of expanding health insurance coverage? Plus, wasn't it Walter Reed that people complained about?
If it was authorized by the president, and if the president had the authority to authorize it, which he most assuredly did, then it's law.
Under what authority can the president authorize violating the war crimes act, The Geneva Conventions, or the International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment? John Yoo may have come up with fanciful arguments for it, but even the President had to disclaim that rationale.
Obviously, the president believes he has no authority to authorize torture since he has adamantly stated repeatedly "we don't torture", as if that is legally sufficient (which it actually isn't).
Maybe the October surprise is that Powell is going to endorse Al Franken.
That'd be a suprise, no doubt.
How is this even a remote consequence of expanding health insurance coverage? Plus, wasn't it Walter Reed that people complained about?
Do I really have to spell this out? If we "expand" health care coverage by making it free for more people, or everyone, all the people who "enjoy" free health care will get the health care offered by Walter Reed. That's the level of care you get when it's free.
Or maybe he'll say to Obama: "Obi Wan Obama - I am your real father!"
Donn said...
Exactly, which is why there is a 99.99999% chance he'll endorse The One.
So what you are saying is that there is still a chance he won't. YES!!!
Fred -- Impeachment is the course that's available to you. Policy cannot be illegal. Policy is what's legal. Sad, but true.
From a purely political standpoint, I recommend letting it go because (1) it will backfire tremendously among the electorate and (2) you set a banana republic precedent of criminalizing political acts. This does not bode well for democracy. What government in its right mind would give up power if the alternative is criminal charges?
Luckily, it's all going to be okay because Obama is more sensible than you are. If he wins, he won't do such a crazy thing.
Madison Man wrote:
Isn't Madonna already marred for life?
Nice spike off Trooper's set. :)
I think it rates a "funny in comments" tag.
Or maybe he'll say to Obama: "Obi Wan Obama - I am your real father!"
Now, that's funny.
Seven wrote: "Russia. How could there be another Cold War when Russia has no international ambitions?"
I think our comrades in Georgia might disagree with you.
Trey
Policy cannot be illegal. Policy is what's legal.
Of course policy can be illegal. You are arguing that the President, when he is acting in his official capacity is above the law. You might want to review your American History. We fought a war of independence based on the proposition that no one is above the law.
MadisonMan said...
triangle man, your 11:17 comment is fabulous!
Aw shucks. Coming from the author of "married for life" at 11:11, that's an honor.
Host, DOH! Sorry I missed the sarcasm. I am in a particularly earnest mood today.
Loreleigh, missed it with you didn't I! And I agree you have no need for me to protect you, I just enjoy commenters on the blog who are reasonable.
I am glad you are sticking around.
Trey
Trey -- Korea and Vietnam are far from Georgia. Would you say that Honduras had international ambitions if it invaded Guatemala?
Fred -- That's truly hilarious. We most certainly did not fight for independence from Britain on the principle that no one is above the law. You have no idea what you are talking about.
P.S. When presidents and members of Congress are acting in their official capacities, they are the law. See, e.g., Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution. Read the whole thing while you are at it.
"He should be leaving Alma and joining Mater."
As long as Powell avoids Alma Mahler.
The thing that always bothered me about Liberals and Colin Powell-
This is the same guy who was against Clinton's proposal of gays in the military and perhaps more importantly said that-
Bosnia would be a quagmire.
But now that his pride has been hurt by the Bush administration [and trust me an Army General is going to err on the side of being prideful-that happens when you can get forty year old men to jump through their own assholes at your every request] and he has let that get the better of him-now he is the Liberal hero.
But just remember that-this is the guy that thought Bosnia would be a quagmire, and that perhaps even after the lessons of WW I, and WW II we should allow that to fester.
Seven Machos said...
"When presidents and members of Congress are acting in their official capacities, they are the law."
I know what you're getting at, but as it stands, this isn't really an accurate statement. A member of Congress has no individual power whatsoever to establish law. When Congress acts in its institutional capacity to pass intra vires legislation, and the President signs that statute, it is the law. When the President makes a determination or gives an order that is within the scope of existing statutory or Constitutional authorization, that might euphemistically be called law, in the way that the CFR have the force of law. But it just isn't true to say that as long as the President is acting "in an official capacity," what he says is the law. That takes us back to Nixon's "if the President does it, it's not illegal" formulation. The President has inherent powers, and can be given more by statute, but statutes can legitimately shape the discretion in which they are exercised - that's how I read cases like Youngstown, United States v. Ramsey and Little v. Barreme, at any rate. The interplay between what the President can do, what Congress can do, and what the Congress can and can't tell the President he can and can't do is much more complex than your comment implies, and although I realize you probably know this, some readers might not.
We're still in Bosnia over a decade so his quagmire comments don't look too bad.
Why would Powell endorse Obama? Because there will be investigations of Bush's administration. He's covering his behind. And yes, while he was an Army 4-star, remember his bigs moves were political appointments. Not command time. He worked for OMB under Carlucci, then NSC director. He did a few months in FORSCOM before becoming Chairman. His knock in Army was he was a politician.
BTW, he endorsed Bush in 2000. Sat out 2004. Some might say he is covering his bases... Just a thought.
Bob-
By your given parameters what do you call Korea, Okinawa, and our bases in Germany?
Quagmire?
Bosnia- we had casualties the likes of what before?
This:
Why would Powell endorse Obama? Because there will be investigations of Bush's administration.
Talk about a possible self-fulfilling prophecy here.
Why would he worry about that-he has the almighty media covering his and Armitage's flanks.
He's served his purpose he's already cleared in perpetuity.
"Policy cannot be illegal. Policy is what's legal.
Of course policy can be illegal. You are arguing that the President, when he is acting in his official capacity is above the law. You might want to review your American History. We fought a war of independence based on the proposition that no one is above the law."
Fred: After Bush leaves the White House why don't you get a posse of like minded individuals and make a citizens arrest? You can read some excerpts from the Hague Conventions while you slap the cuffs on them.
Fred,
The tortures were carried out by the CIA. Want to guess which department the CIA is in? The State Department. Who was in charge of the State Department at the time? Powell. The director of the CIA is fairly independent, but there's still that connection.
I should hope that Powell, the squeamish loser, would be prosecuted as readily as anyone else that acquiesced to staining the honor of this nation by advocating and allowing torture.
In fact, the entire republican party heirarchy should be run out of the country on a rail for allowing the past several years of their despicable behavior and allowing communists like Obama and ultra extreme leftists like Pelosi to get control of this nation.
We fought a war of independence based on the proposition that no one is above the law.
Um, no, that would not be one of the grievances the Founders had with England. They were concerned that everyone receive the protection of the law, though.
Lars, the journalist George Monbiot declared his intent to perform a citizens' arrest on John Bolton at a book festival in Britain recently. He wussed out - no doubt because it suddenly dawned on Monbiot that there was a significant change that Bolton's reaction would be to knock Monbiot's lights out. Man, I love John Bolton. Perhaps he'll be Sarah Palin's Dick Cheney in four years?
Skyler, I thought it was an independent executive agency reporting of late to the DNI who in turn reports directly to the President. How is it operationally or formally subordinate to the Secretary of State?
Rev, it may not have been enumerated in those terms, but I don't think it's unreasonable to characterize the framers as believing that the King had abused his office and acted above the law to strip the colonists of time-honored liberties. For example, underlying the complaint that the King had "dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people" is surely the assertion that the King had invaded the rights of the people.
Simon's right; Powell wasn't in charge of the CIA, directly or indirectly.
That's kind of a moot point, though. The plans to prosecute Bush administration officials for their policy decisions aren't based on actual legal realities in the first place. If they can trump up charges against Dick Cheney, they can trump up charges against anyone. :)
Simon, the objection of the colonists was that the King had violated their natural rights, not that he had violated the law. Furthermore this was listed as a reason for separating themselves from the rule of the King, not as a reason for bringing the King up on criminal charges.
The Founders did not, in my view, share the modern tendency to fetishize the law. How could they? The Revolution was completely illegal and they all knew it. Their arguments were focused on the notion that a government existed to protect the rights of its citizens, and the existing government had repeatedly violated those rights.
And I promise to stop talking about everything but Powell right after this but isn't it funny how the Democrats are shocked -- shocked! -- about the state of our V.A. hospitals and at the same time want to make all health care just like them?
Can I just say that military hospitals are not the same thing as VA hospitals. Walter Reed was an army hospital, not a VA. VA's have problems, like any hospital, but they are actually pretty decent and have been at the head of the class on a number of innovations, like computerized patient records.
On topic, I'll wait to hear what he says, but I don't think Colin Powell will change anyone's vote.
Expat(ish) said...
Is there a D version of the RINO?
Blue-dog Democrat doesn't quite convey the same contempt.
There is a conflict between traditional Republicans, which included moderates - and the Deep South evangelical "Base", now fond of calling anyone who is not a pro-life zealot and a Christian Zionist - a RINO.
The result has been a diminished Republican Party, now all but gone as a power in New England, the Great Lakes States, and West Coast. On their way out in certain Rocky Mountain States, Virginia, Florida.
The key factor appears to be the 20-point difference in white women's votes. They are scared of theocrats and endless wars abroad.
Contributatory are Hispanics and Mormons drifting away "because they have the wrong religion". And Reagan Democrats leaving the Party of outsourcing jobs to China, of Wall Street and "trickledown" from the rich. But nothing quite like the impact of the gender gap.
Something the Republicans will have to think about as they head off in the political wilderness - losing not only to an unqualified Obama, but handing Congress back to Democrats by solid majorities for many years to come. White Southern creationists and militarists are not enough to build a national Party on - not while rejecting the Rudys, and Mitts and Arnolds as of the wrong religion or "tainted" by governing to less ideologically "pure" people outside Dixie.
*******************
Skyler said...
Powell might be a squeamish loser who talked the first Bush into quitting a war in the middle of winning it, taking all the credit from the field commander for what limited success there was despite his efforts to lose it.
That was the cry from Israel and the Neocons...that Bush I "failed" and betrayed the "noble freedom-lovers" of Iraq by not "liberating them".
Actually, it was Gates and James Baker III that had the call, not Powell.
And as Baker said in 2006, after 3500 dead and 600 billion lost - "For years I was asked why we didn't march to Baghdad, even if we lost all our useful allies in the process.....No one asks me that anymore."
*********************
Powell will endorse Obama because he thinks Obama does not believe in the Neocon's agenda of military adventurism, while McCain does. He will sell it that way, not as another Jesse Jackson saying he dislikes the Messiah but skin color trumps all.
********************
Skyler said...
Fred,
The tortures were carried out by the CIA. Want to guess which department the CIA is in? The State Department. Who was in charge of the State Department at the time? Powell.
Nope.
The CIA is a separately funded (black box) independent executive agency that does not report to the Secretary of State. Not in Powell's time, not in any time.
Of course we won't know until it happens, however I have harbored the suspicion that ultimately Powell would endorse Obama when he withheld an early endorsement of McCain before the Clinton-Obama contest was finished.
Thus the non-endorsement of McCain an endorsement of Obama.
With that said, he could just as easily endorse McCain, trying to boost McCain's comeback attempt.
I don't understand him going on Sunday morning to do nothing.
Seven wrote: "Would you say that Honduras had international ambitions if it invaded Guatemala?"
Yes as it violated another country's borders. I am missing your meaning, I can feel it. What am I missing pal? Well, besides a new stereo.
Trey
I don't see how it matters who Powell endorses. If he endorses McCain, it will be dismissed as party loyalty. If he endorses Obama, it will be dismissed as race loyalty. If the guy had some personal credibility then sure, maybe he'd get some mileage out of the endorsement. But his tenure of Secretary of State is acknowledged by both parties as a real embarrassment to the country.
Trey -- The point is that Russia's attack on Georgia had no real effect on the United States. It affected us only morally. Similarly, war between Honduras and Guatemala (with no outside support) doesn't really affect us. Perhaps I should have used countries farther away, like, say, Laos and Cambodia.
During the Cold War, the problem was that the USSR was trying to foment revolution everywhere and install anti-American, anti-capitalist regimes. Whatever Russia is doing now, that's not it. Hence, we won't have some huge threat from Russia any time soon.
Revenant said...
I don't see how it matters who Powell endorses. If he endorses McCain, it will be dismissed as party loyalty. If he endorses Obama, it will be dismissed as race loyalty. If the guy had some personal credibility then sure, maybe he'd get some mileage out of the endorsement. But his tenure of Secretary of State is acknowledged by both parties as a real embarrassment to the country.
Here's how I see it:
If he endorses McCain he was an embarrassment to the country.
If he endorses Obama he was duped and forced to be dishonorable by Bush. It was not his fault. And he's an American hero.
Obviously that's how the media and the Obama campaign (but I repeat myself) will spin things. But normal people don't put much value in Powell's opinion, I suspect.
"For years I was asked why we didn't march to Baghdad, even if we lost all our useful allies in the process.....No one asks me that anymore."
Because no one cares about his opinion on anything.
For our newer readers, you can save time by using this handy summation of all of Cedarford's comments:
FILTHY JEWS! FILTHY JEWS!
FILTHY JEWS! FILTHY JEWS!
FILTHY JEWS! FILTHY JEWS!
Powell has always been a political creature; he's a tarnished icon right now.
A Powell endorsement of Obama will be written off as racially motivated by most everyone that he'd like it to speak to.
Is there actually a black public figure in America who both (a) is not currently working for the Republican Party and (b) publicly supports John McCain for President?
I'm sure they exist; this is a nation of over 300 million people, after all. But can anyone think of one?
Seven, got ya! Thanks for your patience with me.
Trey
I can see the McCain commercial if Powell endorses Obama...
'Another questionable association for Barack Obama... His latest endorsement comes from a man who lied to the United Nations and lead us down the path to a quagmire in Iraq. Barack Obama, ready to warmonger, not ready to lead.'
Strongly disagree with comments that a Powell endorsement for Obama wouldn't matter to voters. It certainly undercuts the McCain/Palin strategy of painting Obama as "palling around with terrorists." Can you imagine Powell supporting Palin as a capable commander in chief?
I suspect that Powell will not only endorse Obama, but he will also comment on the capabilities of Palin vs. Biden. Anybody else have thoughts on whether he will address this and, if so, what he'll say.
Palladian - For our newer readers, you can save time by using this handy summation of all of Cedarford's comments:
FILTHY JEWS! FILTHY JEWS!
FILTHY JEWS! FILTHY JEWS!
FILTHY JEWS! FILTHY JEWS!
I trust Colin Powell and James Baker to use military force more than I do Palladian, Palin, the Neocons.
The former ask "Is the expenditure of the nations blood and treasure in America's interest 1st and foremost?" - while the latter worry "Is it good or bad for Israel?".
That's the bitch about Palladian and his cohort...the matter of loyalties..
Colin Powell, James Baker, AND Bush I have been called anti-Semites at one time or another by the "usual suspects". So has President Clinton. Over matters such as a balanced ME policy, objecting to new Settler colonies and land grabs, and for focus on America's broad strategic interests.
Dubya can be described as a Christian Zionist. We see how well his "vision" has worked out.
McCain wants to go to war with Iran.
Sarah Palin says, also as a Christian Zionist, that we should "Never 2nd-guess" what Israel wants.
Perhaps Powell will articulate this Sunday why he thinks Obama and his People will be better for America's vital foreign policy interests and their impact on our economy and lives - than the "Do as Israel wishes, warhawk ticket" of Palin and McCain.
We will see. Since Dubya jettisoned the Neocons (too late to save his reputation or the Republicans in the 2006/2008 elections), his foreign policy is actually closer to Obamas than McCains. (More diplomacy, no talk of unilateral action, no aid to Israel for an attack on Iran making us complicit in it and the subsequent Global Depression triggered by loss of ME energy supply.) Rice can assert herself more with Defense Secretary Gates, and Cheney and his cabal are spent.
We will see what Powell says. I hope Sunday's talk is illustrative and he details his areas where he differs with Obama, like a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and not atagonizing Russia further.
Maybe Althous will have a discussion post and Palladian and I can argue about the anti-semitic nature of Bush I, Powell, Gates, and others who "2nd-guess what Israel wants".
It certainly undercuts the McCain/Palin strategy of painting Obama as "palling around with terrorists."
That Obama palls around with terrorists is an objective fact. Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and Obama befriended him. The only thing that could undercut that would be a time machine.
Can you imagine Powell supporting Palin as a capable commander in chief?
More easily than I can imagine him doing so for Obama, were Obama a white guy instead of potentially the first black President ever. Obama doesn't know a damned thing about either the military or foreign policy, after all. The closest he's come to the US Army is hearing his friend Bill talk about how he used to try murdering US soldiers.
I trust Colin Powell and James Baker to use military force
There's a surprise. Who'd have guessed that Cedarford would like James "Fuck the Jews" Baker? I for one am totally shocked by that.
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Colin_Powell.php
Mackadasan - US military does not do patroling of the countryside in Okinowa, Korea, and Germany. Those three locations are where we forward deploy troops to meet treaty obligations. Each are strategic locations where we fought extended combat and which allow us to rapidly project our forces to other critical locations. We are also removing troops from each of those three locations. US plans for our forces in balkins are what? Stuck, never-ending? In a non-strategic location that we can't use to project those troops anywhere. And of course we were suppose to be out of balkins after a year - I distinctly remember a President on TV saying that.
So quagmire seems like a real good call.
Powell's endorsement of Obama does not verify Obama's judgement, but rather brings Powell's judgement into question. Powell says that Obama is ready to lead ... WHY? ... Regardless of Powell's last minute endorsement, Obama is still the most liberal senator in congress ... who accomplished nothing in his meager 3 years in office, except voting present 160 times, and campaigning for President, as well as associating with anti-American racists and domestic terrorists ... and, taking America down the road to socialism. Obama betrayed a friendship of 20 years, for personal ambition. Powell betrayed his friendship with McCain. McCain did not betray his fellow prisoners, even during 5 years of torture. These facts speak volumes about who these men really are, and whether or not we can trust them.
sent from: fav.or.it
These Ivy-League Illuminati politicians can't hide behind their endorsers. No matter how much money they're given, or which elitist is backing them, their economic plans will still come to the frontline. That is if their mainstream media buddies don't bury it with the other liberal information.
Post a Comment