Posted by
Daemonocracy on Sunday, October 19, 2008 12:00:00 AM
After an intense amount of speculating, which really picked up around the start of the Democratic convention, Colin Powell has endorsed Barak Obama. I respect Colin Powell, I feel that had Bush listened to him over Rumsfeld, Iraq would have gone alot more smoothly and there would be no Barak Obama today about to sneak into the Presidency thanks to soaring but empty and vapid rhetoric. I still think Colin Powell would make an excellent Secrtary of Defense in a McCain campaign, despite this endorsement.
I just heard Powell explain his endorsement of Obama however and if I were McCain I would be pretty steamed. Powell was burned by Bush and is now being bamboozled by Obama. His reasons for the Obama endorsement seem to be more based on emotion than on rationalization and he took some unfair jabs at McCain. For one, Colin Powell just endorsed a man who launched his campaign on an anti-war platform. His entire primary success was on this one issue, that he was against the war from the beginning while Hillary was for it. The only evidence of this was a speech he gave in 2002 but he ran with it anyway because Hillary was weak on this issue. Colin Powell was one of the architects of this war. He believed, as did George W Bush, that the Intelligence proved Hussein's Iraq to be an imminent threat and that he must be taken out. He put his credibility on the line and swayed many moderates to support the war, he spoke in front of the U.N. pointing to radar pictures and holding vials of harmful substances he claimed Hussein could use against us. He helped Bush sell this war and he just said not too long ago that he still supports his original stance given the information he had. He said he "...never didn't support a position to go to war." and that he "never blinked from that decision." He supported going into Iraq then and still supports going in today, from his own words just a few minutes ago. According to Barak Obama, Colin Powell lacks good judgement. Powell just endorsed that sentiment.
Powell then went on to say that the war looked great but then things started to go "south." Fair enough, but then he says that now things are turning around thanks to "the work of General Petreaus and the troops, through the work of the Iraqi government, through our diplomatic efforts." He then went on to say that he looks forward to this war coming to an end and the Iraqis taking care of their own defense and government, which I suppose is where he is supposed to be in agreement with Obama since he has used similar wording on the stump. It is pretty amazing, and insulting, that Powell can mention how the war has turned around and give credit to all but the Surge, which Obama was against and said would never work and Senator McCain who was much more openly critical of Bush's Iraq policy than Powell ever was and showed much more public support of the Surge than Powell ever did. Powell completely ignored that McCain was right and Obama was wrong when it came to fixing Iraq. While McCain was out there railing against Bush and Rumsfeld in public, making enemies in his own party and enraging many conservatives, all Powell did was quietly resign and go into hiding. He and Obama disagree, to this day apparently, on whether we should have gone to war in the first place and they seem to disagree on the surge, yet Powell endorses Obama.
Instead of challenging him on this, the reporter who got to ask the next question instead asks Powell how much of an impact McCain's negativity played in his decision to endorse Obama. This is the part where Powell really seems confused. He starts going into what seems like an upcoming stump speech for Obama's campaign. He says the negativity "troubled" him and that we have other problems with infrastructure, economy, health, education and diplomatic. He says these are the problems people want to hear about, not William Ayers. Sounds like David Axelrod gave Powell some quick talking points before he formally announced his endorsement. He might as well talk about these other issues instead of the war, considering he and Obama completely disagree on that issue. What he says next however is a direct slap in the face to McCain. If he has a problem with bringing up Ayers, then that is fine and it is his opinion, I personally think Ayers is a valid issue but many don't. What I had a problem with was when Powell suggested that McCain has engaged in the "he's a muslim" smears. This accusation is completely false. If anything, they originated from Clinton supporters and McCain has publicly denounced such statements over and over again. He lambasted a conservative talk radio host in Ohio for using Obama's middle name at one of his rallies and he grabbed the microphone from a woman recently at one of his town hall meetings when she called Obama a muslim and corrected her that he was not a Muslim and was "a good family man". He also said that people don't need to "be scared" of Obama becoming President which drew gasps from the crowd. Yet Powell ignores all of this, and smears McCain. John McCain has never played the Muslim card with Obama, he has done the exact opposite.
After some irrelevant rhetoric about some Minnesota congressman wanting to go after who is un-American in congress Powell goes back to Ayers and calls it a trivial issue and claims bringing his name up is to suggest "terrorist inclinations" on Obama's part which is "over the top" according to Powell. I agree that bringing up Ayers to suggest terrorist inclinations would be wrong to do, but that is not why Ayers is being brought up. Ayers is not a trivial issue and the reason he is being brought up is because he is a radical leftist figure from Obama's past. We do not know much about Obama, he still hasn't been properly vetted by the media but there are people from his past, who helped form his frame of thought and launch his political career, who are out of the mainstream when it coems to American values and thinking. Ayers, Wright and others are leftist idealogues while Acorn and Mayor Daley are a product of a corrupt political machine which in no way represents change or reform. None of these men represent the theme and rhetoric of "change we can believe in", so why is Obama surrounded with people like this? Why does he tolerate such left wing extremism and what does he really believe? He is the most liberal Senator in Washington and was one of the most liberal state senators in Illinois who has connections to leftist radicals. This is a perfectly legitimate issue which he should be challenged on. Obama also lied about his relationship with Ayers when first asked about it in a debate with Clinton saying he was "just a guy from the neighborhood." This has proven to be untrue as evidence has surfaced that their connections dates back to a working relationship in the 1990's and he even wrote a blurb on a book Ayers wrote. His connection to Ayers is not about terrorism, it is about his liberalism, and his judgement. His past relationships also lend credence to the very real possibility that he is a Socialist.
Powell then preaches on about how he is not only troubled by the negativity surrounding the Ayers issue but with McCain calling Obama a Socialist. Nevermind that Obama brought this upon hismelf by giving an honest answer to a regular guy referred to as "Joe the Plumber" (who by the way is being smeared himself, for simply asking Obama a question. no mention of that by Powell). In his answer to "Joe", Obama said that redistributing wealth is a good thing. McCain, Joe, myself and many Americans see it as socialism. Powell on the otherhand, not known for his domestic policy, goes into a sermon about how all taxes are about redistributing wealth or money. He says most of the money goes to roads, schools and hospitals. Yeah that's all well and good, but that is not what Obama is talking about. Obama is talking about income redistribution where you take from one person and give to another person. You want to build a hospital? Fine, if it's needed. But when you give that money to people who pay no Federal income taxes to begin with, as Obama will do, then it is socialism. Powell says "he deosn't want anyone's taxes raised..." but he also wants to see our "infrastructure fixed" and wants to take care of the national debt and deficits. This is confusing, if he doesn't want anyone's taxes raised then he wouldn't have endorsed Obama. If he is so worried about infrastructure then he should question why Obama, under his tax plan, plans to give money to people who don't even pay taxes instead of using that extra tax revenue to fix the infrastructure he so cares about. If Powell is so worried about the national debt and deficits then he would question why Obama is proposing a trillion dollars in new entitlement programs which will add further to the national debt and our deficits. He would question why Obama has requested so much in earmarks considering he hasn't been in the Senate very long and why he opposes McCain's spending freeze and complete halt of all earmarks to try and get our budget under control. On every single issue Powell stated, he falls in line with McCain, yet he endorses Obama.
Obama's empty but soaring rhetoric has fooled alot of smart people. But I'm not sure if Powell is all that fooled, I just think this is his way at getting back at Bush for listening to Rumsfeld over him. Powell has never been a conservative so he actually cares about his tarnished image in the media and world community and endorsing Obama could help mend that image. Also, and some may find this observation offensive but it has to be said, both men are black. Obama is running a historic campaign which has a meaning to black americans I could never fully understand. Powell more than likely wants to be part of this history but throwing mud at McCain through completely unfounded accusations is not the way to go. The media will not question Powell's unfair accusations or inconsistencies because he just endorsed their candidate and they will spin it as positively as possible.