SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Breaking news: Powell endorses Obama (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=143350)

Konovalov 10-20-08 03:37 AM

This endorsement will help swing some if not many undecided voters. The explanation and reasons given by Powell appeared genuine. Indeed in my view what Powell said was an accurate assessment of the failings of the McCain campaign and McCains lack of judgement on both the economy and the selection of Palin.

Powell sums it up pretty well for me with these honest and at the end powerfull words:

Quote:

And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

caspofungin 10-20-08 05:16 AM

just wanted to ask the americans' opinion -- should powell have run for president? would he be a better candidate than either mccain or obama?

CCIP 10-20-08 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caspofungin
just wanted to ask the americans' opinion -- should powell have run for president? would he be a better candidate than either mccain or obama?

He could have, but his direct association with the Bush administration and especially his infamous presentation on how Iraq undoubtedly had WMDs would have still probably cost him many votes in the more moderate crowds, while his general position would probably not sit well with the conservatives (and the liberals we can count out here by default). He's a very sharp guy, but I don't think he had any realistic chance of being nominated this time around. Even for a VP slot, he wouldn't have been a good bet.

Tchocky 10-20-08 06:18 AM

I was wondering if Powell would implicitly back Obama.

Turns out he doesn't do anything by halves :)

Quote:

"I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said such things as: "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is: he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is: No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be president?"
THat shouldn't be a noteworthy statement.

Oh, and looking around the interwebs, there seem to be a
lot of angry people, most taking Mikhayl's joke seriously.

Von Tonner 10-20-08 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konovalov
This endorsement will help swing some if not many undecided voters. The explanation and reasons given by Powell appeared genuine. Indeed in my view what Powell said was an accurate assessment of the failings of the McCain campaign and McCains lack of judgement on both the economy and the selection of Palin.

Powell sums it up pretty well for me with these honest and at the end powerfull words:

Quote:

And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

That reference Powell made to Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan hopefully will make those who give home to discriminatory thoughts pause to think. It certainly made me look in on myself.

Here is a link to info on Rashad.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/krkhan.htm

Digital_Trucker 10-20-08 07:45 AM

On a totally different note, does anyone find it coincidental that shortly after Powell announces his endorsement, Obama announces his intention to have Powell as an advisor?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...n_N.htm?csp=34

Yes, I know the headline says could, make sure to read the quote. I wonder how Colin would feel about being an advisor alongside Franklin Raines, Tim Howard and Jim Johnson?

Skybird 10-20-08 07:45 AM

the day of shame.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6...n743990tx9.jpg

that's when Powell lost me. A man of integrity would have confronted or - if forced to - even left government before willing to participate in that ridiculous fake show.

Konovalov 10-20-08 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird
even left government before willing to participate in that ridiculous fake show.

I have yet to see any evidence to show that the Bush Administration knowingly lied about WMD's. Are you implying that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and then Secretary of State Powell lied to the American people and indeed lied to the world in presenting what you term as a "fake show" to the United Nations Security Council?

Skybird 10-20-08 10:12 AM

Aussie humour, I assume.:hmm:

August 10-20-08 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird
Aussie humour, I assume.:hmm:

August's Skybird translating service:

"That's an uncomfortable question so i will try to laugh it off".

Frame57 10-20-08 11:41 AM

WMD's? Well, there is only two ways to go with it. Either the administartion lied or their Intel was flawed. Back in the 80's we got dispatched to check out an alleged Soviet boomer being off the coast of Maine. SOSUS reported it and it turned out to be friggin NR-1. Intel can be flawed. But, I also believe in holding people accountable for flawed info. It is serious business

August 10-20-08 12:25 PM

If you're going to play the blame game then start with Saddam himself:

http://able2know.org/topic/110876-1

Quote:

Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.

Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS's 60 Minutes program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions" said Piro. "He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack."

"He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack" Piro said.

In 2003, a close aide of Saddam's told The Associated Press that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it.

Saddam publicly denied having unconventional weapons before the U.S. invasion, but prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country from 1998 until 2002 and when they finally returned in November 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating.

Piro, a Lebanese-American who speaks Arabic, debriefed Saddam after he was found in an underground hideout near his home city north of Baghdad in December 2003, nine months after the U.S. invasion.

Piro said Saddam also said that he wanted to keep up the illusion that he had the program in part because he thought it would deter a likely Iranian invasion.

For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq, Piro told Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes.

Piro added that Saddam had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program at the time, and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

August 10-20-08 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikhayl
Blaming him for what exactly, thinking that the US admnistration was smarter than it actually was ? Great mistake indeed.

No, his mistake was calculating that the US would launch another impotent Clintonian missile attack, ie do nothing.

August 10-20-08 06:21 PM

Interesting.

Powell is actually going against his son in this:

http://www.thehill.com/leading-the-n...008-10-20.html

Kapt Z 10-20-08 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konovalov
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird
even left government before willing to participate in that ridiculous fake show.

I have yet to see any evidence to show that the Bush Administration knowingly lied about WMD's. Are you implying that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and then Secretary of State Powell lied to the American people and indeed lied to the world in presenting what you term as a "fake show" to the United Nations Security Council?

I would imply that, yes.

The strange thing was at the time my 'conservative' Republican friends were even more into the conspiracy theories than I was. They were all convinced that the Bush administration wanted the war and was willing to do anything necessary to see that it happened. They thought it was obvious that the 'diplomacy' was all a sham.

I liked Colin Powell and I really wish he had resigned instead of going before the UN.

August 10-20-08 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapt Z
I would imply that, yes.

The strange thing was at the time my 'conservative' Republican friends were even more into the conspiracy theories than I was. They were all convinced that the Bush administration wanted the war and was willing to do anything necessary to see that it happened. They thought it was obvious that the 'diplomacy' was all a sham.

I liked Colin Powell and I really wish he had resigned instead of going before the UN.

So you imply without any proof other than the feelings of your fellow conspiracy theorists? Kinda flimsy no?

Skybird 10-20-08 08:28 PM

The point is that back then the CIA and other intel services clearly got the order that they had to create and construct the evidence needed to give the impression of a political causes that was wanted - even if reality was not in line with this. Repeatedly, members of the intel services had revealed that, and they also complained about that that their later realistic assessements obviously never had reached the president - or he had not read them, instead kept on talking silly nonsens that showed that he had no clue of what he was talking about. Even a late general assessement of needed corrections that was worked out by 15 intelligence offices together - he apparently never read: "not even the first page were we summarized it", as one member of the gremium complained about with resignation. the names behind this conspiracy against the nation probably are not just Bush himself, who probably was just too stupid to see what was happening, or did see it but did not care, but Cheney and Rumsfeld (also in the team: Rice), who ran the show in Bush's place, and for that got card balanche from Bush. Here is were Bush's real catastrophic failure lies. Like all moralists, he is in his way plain stupid, but not by nature "evil". He is just an incompetent dilletant for whom being presidient simply is completely too much from A to Z, and who messd this job up like he has messed up ever yother job and business project that he ever put his hands on - they all ended in desasters from which his uber-daddy had to save him and for which other people had to pay the bill.

Kapt Z 10-21-08 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapt Z
I would imply that, yes.

The strange thing was at the time my 'conservative' Republican friends were even more into the conspiracy theories than I was. They were all convinced that the Bush administration wanted the war and was willing to do anything necessary to see that it happened. They thought it was obvious that the 'diplomacy' was all a sham.

I liked Colin Powell and I really wish he had resigned instead of going before the UN.

So you imply without any proof other than the feelings of your fellow conspiracy theorists? Kinda flimsy no?

No, I implied because that's what I believe. I was just shocked to hear my friends share my feelings. We have been disagreeing on politics since the 7th grade. I think there is more than ample evidence, but I think Skybird's last post pretty much covered it. Deception or incompitence take your pick.

August 10-21-08 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapt Z
No, I implied because that's what I believe. I was just shocked to hear my friends share my feelings. We have been disagreeing on politics since the 7th grade. I think there is more than ample evidence, but I think Skybird's last post pretty much covered it. Deception or incompitence take your pick.

Skybirds post is just monday morning quarterbacking. Nobody could say in 2002 that Saddam didn't have the weapons he claimed he had, or that he didn't have the expertise and resources to make more of them including nukes given a little time, nor was the Bush administration the first to think he had them either though it's tough to find a Democrat these days who remembers what they were saying in the 1990s.

Besides, in spite of what the revisionists will tell you WMDs were never the only reason for taking him out. It should have been done in 1991, and for that I blame Bush Sr. But whatever, Saddam was a dangerous, violent and cruel tyrant with access to a lot of petrodollars and a strong desire for revenge. It'd be stupid to leave him in power. I'd think all the oil for food scandles would show you that. I firmly believe that had we not invaded Iraq we'd have had another 9-11 by now and he'd have had a hand in it.

Von Tonner 10-22-08 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August
I firmly believe that had we not invaded Iraq we'd have had another 9-11 by now and he'd have had a hand in it.

My belief as well. The danger of a Saddam circumventing UN sanctions far outweighed an academic debate at the time of whether their was conclusive proof he had or was developing WMD. He had to be taken out period.

The problem and sad thing was with phase 2 after he was toppled as Powell referred to. That is where current debate should be, inspecting one's navel on phase 2 so that the same mistakes are not made again should one have to take out another regime to secure world stability. I have a problem using the word 'peace' as for me, that is an illusive concept. It is like watching a dog try and catch its tail. It ain't going to happen.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.