Colin Powell

[GreatOwl]

As an independent, here is someone I would have supported as a Presidential Candidate or even vice President should he have ever chosen to run. 




http://tinyurl.com/572huo

[Sam]

I would have as well. I so admired him. I think it is to bad that he was so misled by the PTB.

[caesu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_c5bbvmqc

these are EXACTLY my thoughts over the last few weeks.

[Slogger]

I respect Colin Powell.

Also, I am sincerely disappointed at his choice.

[crazybabyborg]

I, too, respect Powell. McCain has said he does well.

I wonder when Meet The Press will invite the five Secretary Of States, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, and Condeleeza Rice, to appear on the show that endorse McCain?

[caesu]

well, they don't have to appear on MTP for that.

they can release statements to counter Powell.
i haven't seen them do that.

i bet they just endorsed McCain by default.
i really doubt in private they really support McCain that much.

very important in my opinion is that Petraeus agrees more with Obama than with McCain.

just one example:

McCain, on the other hand, has said that Petraeus will win in Afghanistan simply by using the same strategy that he employed as commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. (Petraeus himself dismissed this notion in an Oct. 8 speech at the Heritage Foundation, noting, "The biggest lesson of counterinsurgency is that every situation is unique.")

http://www.slate.com/id/2202455/

[WhiskeyGirl]

Colin Trouble

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 10.21.08 @ 2:49PM

Prompted by a friend to address the Colin Powell "problem," I read James Poulos's insights on Powell-ism:

Nothing in Powell's endorsement rationale, which is textbook Powell from beginning to end, has to do with either his or Obama's race, or with any crazy hopes that Powell might harbor. His praise for Obama's style and substance was firm, even, and in keeping with the skills Obama has already plainly demonstrated. Indeed, Powell waited for his endorsement until the substance of his own praise for Obama had become almost completely uncontroversial.

But then, his praise for Obama was entirely superficial. Powell certainly is Eisenhower, someone who feels no particular allegiance politically speaking. Though that, in itself, is a testament to the man's character. He's certainly become a "party unto himself," but if so, why speak at so many GOP conventions? Powell's neutrality is overrated. He enjoyed his time in the sun as a Republican darling, but was unhappy when things didn't go his way. He has every right to express that unhappiness, but don't attribute to the man a transcendence over politics.

I do agree with one point Poulos makes:

But by the same token, Powell's praise of Obama is only partially an attack on conservatism, and even then is a largely misguided one.

Indeed, Powell's caricature of modern conservatism either makes him a dunce or simply desperate to disassociate himself from the Republican party. As defined, even the right isn't too happy with how "right" the party has become.

By the way, missed in the hubbub about his endorsement is his skillful defense of the Iraq War. What doesn't measure up, though, is that if Powell was so certain, based on his sources, that the Iraq War was the right thing to do, why does Obama still get points for good judgment in opposing the same war?

This is part of a larger argument, obviously, that really can't ever be won. Namely thus: Just because weapons of mass destruction weren't found doesn't legitimize the anti-war left's position. They would have been against the war whether or not Iraq was a threat. I was sold on the war on the basis of weapons of mass destruction (not fighting tyranny). I remain sold on it because of the problems posed by withdrawing early.

In that light, I'm curious about how Powell addresses the endgame. So Obama was apparently judicious to not believe Powell's presentation to the UN. What about Obama's withdrawal plans/rhetoric is judicious?

http://www.spectator.org/blog/2008/10/21/colin-trouble

What was in Iraq?  Kurds? 

Are the Kurdish people somehow less appealing as victims than say those in Darfur?

Is it better to be in Darfur than in Iraq?

What is in Afghanistan?

[WhiskeyGirl]

Mark Halperin suggests that “Powell is a brand unto himself in American politics, and clearly transcends the media's tendency to hype endorsements over their actual importance to voters.” But the strength of Powell’s brand, and the enduring authority he’s maintained since leaving the Bush administration under a bit of a cloud, has little to do with transcendence and everything to do with conventionality. Powell is the very model of the conventional major general: he is an Eisenhower for our age, except without the suitably technocratic opportunity to run for president as a Republican in name only. It’s plain that Eisenhower’s Republicanism was as deep as his commonsensical desire to prevent a full generation of Democratic presidents (and win on whatever ticket worked). Like Powell, Eisenhower was above all a competent bureau head, the product of a world in which patient, detailed, mentally disciplined planning ranked supreme. It was easy for both men to recognize administrative leadership where it was due. And like Eisenhower, Powell doesn’t transcend hype: he flies under its radar; and it’s there — unlike, say, sitting before the General Assembly — that he’s most comfortable.

So Powell’s endorsement has to be read in the context of his basic disposition: measured, mannered, comprehensive, and conventional. It’s no surprise that Powell opened and closed his endorsement of Obama with the disclaimer that “Either one” of McCain and Obama, “I think, would be a good president.” And it’s even less of a surprise that Powell granted Obama the clear advantage on the attributes and talents that he cares about most: “a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge, and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that I think is ready to be president on day one, and also not jumping in and changing every day but showing intellectual vigor. I think he has a definitive way of doing business that would do us well.”

What’s a little more surprising is Powell’s more colorful language — specifically, his declaration that Obama is a “transformational” personage. But what’s most surprising is how much Powell dwelled on the transformation he’s judged his own party to have made. “It has moved more to the right than I would like to see,” he said. “Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift.” Here there are problems. Powell’s appreciation for Obama is really a product of his judgment that Obama will work less of a transformation than a reformation. The most reality-altering Obama gets, in Powell’s estimation, involves an “inclusive,” but not very revolutionary, belief that “all towns have values.” 

http://culture11.com/node/33023