War Criminal Powell ready to jump on Obama bandwagon; endorsement may be coming

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/wobama117.xml

One has held high office in both the United States armed forces and President George W Bush's Republican administration. The other, a Democrat, is seeking to become America's first black president.

Now Washington is buzzing with talk that Barack Obama, the candidate for the White House, and Colin Powell, the former general and secretary of state, may join forces.

Last week, Mr Powell revealed that he has been advising the senator from Illinois on foreign policy - provoking a flurry of speculation about the plans and ambitions of both men.

Mr Powell, 70, who left office in January 2005 under a cloud left by the war in Iraq, has served three Republican presidents, but made clear that he is considering backing a Democrat to succeed his former boss, George W Bush.

He disclosed that he has twice met Sen Obama, at the request of the White House hopeful. "I make myself available to talk about foreign policy matters and military matters with whoever wishes to chat with me," Mr Powell said. "I'm going to support the best person that I can find who will lead this country."

You have something from a publication?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/06/powell_confirms.html

==In late April, Howard Fineman reported in Newsweek that Powell and Obama--who is seeking to the Democratic nomination for president in 2008-- had met at the urging of mutual friends: "Powell has had a history of offering his expertise to anyone who is interested, but especially fellow African-Americans, since there aren't many blacks in the top ranks of the foreign policy establishment."

When asked on Meet the Press about his future plans, Powell did not rule out a return to government service and refused to commit to supporting a Republican in 2008. Russert did not ask about Fineman's claim that Powell would endorse Obama in the general election if he receives the nomination.==

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18291108/

Of course, then there's this:

http://2008central.net/?p=910

This has led to speculation and commentary across the blogosphere: that Powell is a RINO and should be ignored, that Obama should not talk with someone like Powell who did not stop the Iraq War, that Powell wants a cabinet position, and even speculation that Powell will end up as Obama’s running mate.

The real takeaway is something a lot less dramatic. Namely that Obama is listening to and taking advice on general foreign policy, something that has to be considered a weakness with him only serving a couple years nationally. He has the credibility and record of opposing the war from the start, while also not being opposed to all military action like a Kucinich.Talks with someone like Powell, who has worked high in administrations will only give him more depth and nuance to talk about foreign policy beyond Iraq.

The long term take away from this is two fold: First, Obama can talk more with more knowledge and authority about world politics as a whole than he otherwise would have been able to, and fit his vision of Iraq into a credible worldview, which presumably will help him sound more credible. Secondly, Obama was already -as of April- meeting with people to prepare himself for a potential move to the center after the Democratic primaries. We’ve chided Obama here at 2008 Central for making some small missteps on the campaign trail over the campaign, but this was a good move back then which will probably pay off in the long run, even if it frustrates the far left a little bit in the short run.

Regardless of the venue, as the link I posted shows, the claim was made by Fineman, a legitimate political reporter. Read into it whatever you wish.

I'd have a hard time voting for Obama in my state's primary if he was being supported by Colin Powell.

However, I reaffirm my pledge to support the Democratic nominee no matter who it is in the general election.

Or so that is how the story goes. Let's see. He is clearly open to endorsing a Dem. Hmmm...now which Dem would that be? ;)

not to mention the way the Clintons undermined the Kerry campaign and other Democrats instead of working to oppose Bushes.


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354


Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."




http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>>




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg




Wonder why?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

never said a word about the faulty intelligence, when they had more access to it than just about anybody short of Bush himself.

When you get in the middle of a thread about your candidate and then take a hit on Hillary you are not helping your candidate.

I will take hits on her any opportunity I get, to wake people up to what she really is.

that's just childish name-calling.

And as long as people want to start distorting who the real pro-war candidates were, I'll be reminding them. In whatever words it takes to get their attention.

as shrill and silly.

It's not your "duty" to wake people up with smears and name-calling, no matter how good it may make you feel.

You don't really think such posts are going to change somebody's mind, do you?

'Nuff said.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was having dinner Thursday in Aspen, Colo., with President Clinton and other friends when - in Powell's words - he "started hyperventilating a little and was feeling a little altitude sickness." So, as the Aspen Daily News reports, it was off to the hospital to be checked out (the same hospital, coincidentally, where Enron founder Ken Lay was pronounced dead this week).

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/07/colin_powell_im.html

...to blow the whistle on his former handlers Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, et al.

Maybe Colin Powell is ready to change parties.

Hmmm...what better way to appear to be striving for "unity" than placing a popular Republican in your cabinet?

That seems far-fetched; it probably is. However, one thing completely missing at DU is any discussion of what concessions Obama will make to the right-wing to achieve his "unity." There is no way he can do that while governing as a progressive. He will either abandon the unity talk after taking office, like Bush II did, or he will govern as a Bill Clinton Third Way type. Indeed, read pg. 34 of his book. He seems to think highly of Clinton's DLC Third Way approach to governing...

How in the heck does he have the knowledge to give any body advice after the mess he has made of the "foreign policy" we have now.

:rofl:

Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bill Clinton.

hanging out with Bill Clinton much more recently.

She voted for the Iraq War. Although now she says that she didn't think that Bush would have used the authorization to actually engage in war; I don't remember her speaking out against the War once military actions were known to take place.

Is she a war criminal too for supporting the war also?

=='But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''<==[br />
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/20/10952/2513

The Clinton campaign later supplied several Obama quotations from 2004 to buttress Penn's attack. One came from the New York Times, in which Obama declined to criticize the Democratic Party's presidential and vice presidential nominees, Sen. John F. Kerry and then-Sen. John Edwards, for supporting the 2002 war resolution. "But I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Obama said, according to the Times.

:shrug:

==What would I have done? I don't know. ==

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech"

Isn't the question what he would have done if he were in the senate?

They are his words, not mine.

P.S. see my post about Obama and Holy Joe. While Obama's supporters love to worship at the altar of the IWR, clearly Obama himself doesn't think the IWR--or even supporting the war--is that big a deal in deciding whether to support a candidate.

Live with it. Obama might not think its a pre-req to determine our nominee, and I don't either. But it is a big factor in my decision because it shows a lot about judgement!

The thing that is pissing me off now is that Hillary is trying to make herself anti-war by stating that she did not know that Bush would use the authority in that manner. Well according to this rationale, why did she not speak up when he did use it in the manner he did.

This is what she needs to be asked in the debate and answer for.

Still, Kerry was hammered consistently until he won the nomination by the IWR worshipers.

==Obama might not think its a pre-req to determine our nominee, and I don't either. But it is a big factor in my decision because it shows a lot about judgement!==


Fair enough, but we need to compare the Obama of 2002 to the Obama of 2006 and 2007. It it easy to be a local politician against the war. As soon as he became a U.S. senator and could smell the White House he seems to have changed--and his voting record on Iraq reflects this.

My problem with the IWR worshipers is they are so obsessed with the IWR that they don't even bother to look at the candidates' records on Iraq after the IWR and certainly ignore their current positions on Iraq. Obama's position today is identical to HRC's. These people call HRC a neocon yet support someone with the same position as her! :wtf:

"Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War"

Edwards is the one who had the hissy-fit in February when Dean said Edwards wasn't standing by his support for the war in his 2003 CA speech. Edwards made Dean apologize because Edwards had stated his support for actual war, not just the IWR.

There are people who have had the same position on the war, and that is Hillary and Edwards. Neither one of them changes their position until the wind changes. They are the two peas in a pod.

Kerry had the guts--on the day of the invasion--to rip Bush II a new one (one reason I respect him greatly).

==There are people who have had the same position on the war, and that is Hillary and Edwards. Neither one of them changes their position until the wind changes.==

Biden? Dodd?

You make a fair point. Their shifts happened to coincide with public opinion. This is clearly a substantial hurdle they need to clear. However, Iraq is just one of many issues. We need to look at whether there is a clear pattern on the part of particular candidates to shift with the political winds.

One other thing that is overlooked, but should be noted, is that the war once had 70% support. Many "average" people who originally supported it are now against it. Was that because of the polls? Hardly. Many people saw the original reasons for the war exposed as false, Iraq steadily deteriorate, the damage to our nation's standing abroad, etc. and changed their minds on the war. Yes, senators should not be as fickle since they have more knowledge of such issues. This is not an excuse. However, we should not completely dismiss the possibility that even a senator could honestly change their opinion on an issue. After all, they are human.

It's called being a good Democrat. He knows what he would have done.

Would Obama--in the summer of 2004--disagreeing with Kerry and Edwards even matter, let alone damage their campaign?

==It's called being a good Democrat.==

Like when he intervened in the Democratic primary on behalf of Holy Joe and against Ned Lamont? :eyes: Yes, ladies and gentlemen. HE. Mr. IWR himself endorsed Holy Joe. Stop the presses! Say it ain't so! The man who is most associated with opposing the IWR supported the war's most fervent (then) Democratic supporter?

Clearly, Obama himself does not worship at the altar of the IWR. He apparently didn't even mind that Holy Joe continued to support the war. At least Kerry, HRC, Edwards and co. realized they were wrong. Holy Joe was a war supporter when Mr. IWR endorsed him and to this day supports the war.

=="The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.==

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

let alone damage their campaign?"

ABSOLUTELY.

As for the rest, sandnsea below is right.

It was political suicide for him to speak out against the war when he did, but he followed his judgment and conviction. Even if he was in the Senate, you know he wouldn't have supported the wa just like his good friend and fellow Senator Durbin. And isn't it true that Hillary didn't even read all the intelligence report?

Also, Hillary is trying to make the point that she was anti-war because she didn't know Bush would use the authority the way he did (which was to go into war). But at the time, she wasn't anti-war, because she never spoke up against the war when miltary actions were beginning.

If she truly supported the rationale for the war, she should be honest and say that she supports the way Bush used his authority (to go into war)! I agree, she can make arguements for the pay it was carried out, but that still doesn't excuse her wanting to engage in war with Iraq.

We must "stay the course” in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked for more troops to finish the job.
“We have to exert all of our efforts militarily”

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintIon.htm

Nov 2003

She was as much a problem for the Democratic Party as Joe Lieberman was, until the entire country woke up to what the Bush's were doing.

and obama would never give bush unlimited power, unlike other senators did.

Early in the year, Lamont looked like a waste of money candidacy. It was a very dangerous play. If they had run a good Republican, we wouldn't have control of the Senate right now. That was Obama's position. When Lamont won the primary, then Obama endorsed him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_primary%2C_Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election%2C_2006#Opposition_to_Lieberman

==Senators Joe Biden, Barack Obama,Daniel Inouye and Ken Salazar campaigned for Lieberman on July 31.==

Here is what the most recent polls looked like when Obama made the trek to CT to campaign for Holy Joe (the first number is Joe):

==Rasmussen (likely primary voters) July 20, 2006 41% 51%
Quinnipiac (likely primary voters) July 20, 2006 47% 51%==

The race was very much in play when the rock star intervened on behalf of Holy Joe. Obama had a real choice; he chose Lieberman over Lamont and the netroots.

:eyes:

The answer is clearly yes. Your previous post implied Lamont had no shot when Obama supported Holy Joe and that Obama had no real choice. That was not the case. The race was close--followed nationally at the time--and Mr. IWR made another trip (he endorsed him in Hartford in March. http://ex-donkey.mu.nu/archives/166079.php I didn't keep track of how many visits he made to aid Holy Joe. Nor is it relevant) to CT to help the biggest (then) Democratic supporter of the war in America.

Despite this, countless Obama supporters continue to worship at the altar of the IWR--while Obama laughs his way to the primary bank.

We've established that. You can try to pretend Lamont is relevant all you want. He's just not. The netroots supported Webb too, and he hasn't turned out to be much better than Lieberman.

Edwards has moved from being to the right of Hillary, to now being as far left as Dennis Kucinich. He had a good opportunity to do something important for this country. He doesn't know his own mind and he keeps listening to the wrong advisers. The day he put Trippi on his campaign is the day he lost the nomination. You can have far left views, but you have to wrap them in a centrist bow. Trippi doesn't get that, and wouldn't know how to do it if he did. Edwards has NO political sense at all, without Elizabeth he'd be nowhere. Sad, but true.

The IWR is the stick Obama supporters wield against HRC, Edwards, and if needed, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden. It is very relevant that Obama himself does not worship at the altar of the IWR. In fact, Mr. (anti) IWR is so big on the sacred IWR that he favored Lieberman--JOE LIEBERMAN--over Lamont! :eyes: That is like someone known for speaking on behalf of PETA later helping raise money to open a KFC franchise. It seems hypocritical that Obama supporters use something Obama himself clearly does not think matters much in electing someone against HRC 24/7 and Edwards fairly often.

==The netroots supported Webb too, and he hasn't turned out to be much better than Lieberman.==

Over George "macaca" Allen. You can't equate the two races. Webb is a zillion times better than Allen. Lieberman, though, is far worse than Lamont. The netroots were correct in each case; Obama was wrong to favor the biggest Democratic cheerleader for the war.

As far as Trippi goes, he just joined the Edwards campaign. Nothing in terms of policy has changed since then.

Speaking of Edwards, he remained neutral in the Lieberman-Lamont primary, offering proof that a prominent Dem could have chosen not to support Holy Joe.

The only reason it even comes up is because Edwards is playing the exact same game Dean played. He doesn't have to vote on anything so he's sitting on the sidelines and throwing rocks at every vote Congress makes. And, just like Dean, Edwards has no room to talk because he has been so wishy-washy on the war it's pathetic. Just as bad as Hillary. That's the issue. That's why Edwards won't gain traction. Most people don't even know who the hell Ned Lamont is.

including Bill Clinton and Barbara Boxer.

Seriously, Lieberman was the incumbent in a party primary. Party members often stump for incumbents. Few at that point seriously believed he would run as an independent if he lost.

If you want to argue about Obama's positions on the war since then, of if you think he's being disingenuous on the Iraq war, say so (though there is no indication he is). Him endorsing Lieberman in the primaries proves nothing other than him backing the incumbent Dem senator from CT at the time.

==If you want to argue about Obama's positions on the war since then, of if you think he's being disingenuous on the Iraq war, say so (though there is no indication he is). Him endorsing Lieberman in the primaries proves nothing other than him backing the incumbent Dem senator from CT at the time.==

In post #50, which I posted minujtes before this, I mention why I think this is relevant. It has to do with the IWR obsession of many Obama supporters.

As far as him being disingenuous on the war goes I have spoken of that in other threads. Basically, he is hiding his plan to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely--the identical position to HRC. He has been open on the rest. The key difference is in marketing. Obama supporters vilify HRC as a neocon for her Iraq views yet they never bother to check their hero's (99% identical) record on Iraq versus HRC's in the senate. Nor do they ever compare their current (identical...) platforms on Iraq. All they talk about is the IWR, IWR, IWR. This brings us back to he Obama/Holy Joe thing. :)

The following have endorsed Joseph Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Senate Primary.


People
Former President Bill Clinton, who campaigned for Lieberman in Waterbury on July 24
U.S. Senator Chris Dodd
U.S. Senator and Minority Leader Harry Reid
CA Senator Barbara Boxer, who campaigned for Lieberman on July 24
DE Senator Joe Biden, HA Senator Daniel Inouye, CO Senator Ken Salazar, who campaigned for Lieberman on July 31
NY Senator Hillary Clinton
IL Senator Barack Obama
IN Senator Evan Bayh
NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg
DE Senator Tom Carper
CA Senator Diane Feinstein
OR Senator Mark Pryor
OR Senator Ron Wyden
NE Senator Ben Nelson
CT Representative Rosa DeLauro
CT Representative John Larson
CT Lt. Governor Kevin Sullivan
CT Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz
CT State Comptroller Nancy Wyman
CT State Treasurer Denise Nappier
Former Democratic Party Chair John Olson
All of Connecticut's State Democratic Legislators <1>
All Democratic CT candidates for U.S. Congress <2>
Both Democratic CT candidates for Governor <3>
Republican Congressman Christopher Shays