Colin Powell endorses Obama for second term

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

+EDIT+ why bring Romney's military record into it? Obama didn't serve either. Who in their right mind "wants" to go to war? Even if Powell was a soldier, this couldn't really play a part in the decision to back President Obama++

edit on 25-10-2012 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

Not serving and then becoming President is one thing. And you are correct no one should want to go to war. A problem with Romney is not that it wasn't just that he hid behind his Mormonism to get out of it, but while doing so protested not against the war but for it. So he was in favor of sending you and yours to die, while he the son of privilege vacationed on the beaches of France.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

+EDIT+ why bring Romney's military record into it? Obama didn't serve either. Who in their right mind "wants" to go to war? Even if Powell was a soldier, this couldn't really play a part in the decision to back President Obama++

edit on 25-10-2012 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

Not serving and then becoming President is one thing. And you are correct no one should want to go to war. A problem with Romney is not that it wasn't just that he hid behind his Mormonism to get out of it, but while doing so protested not against the war but for it. So he was in favor of sending you and yours to die, while he the son of privilege vacationed on the beaches of France.

edit on 25-10-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)

Thank you that is exactly how I feel about the situation with Romney.

The guy was pushing for others to fight while he said it’s against my religion. For me at least that should mean he cannot be commander and chief.

reply to post by KeliOnyx

Everyone IS aware of the fact that Romney's draft card never came up and he never was called to serve, right?

It's a fair debate as to whether his choice of time and place for missionary work the LDS strongly encourages men at his age then to do was to avoid service. We can't know though because the war wasn't drafting any longer when his time would have come. Unlike others...Clinton for example...Who absolutely DID choose other avenues when he would have been headed to S.E. Asia (or up for fair picking anyway), Romney just wasn't the right age.

I'd also note Clinton turned out to be one of the better Presidents if one judges by pure numbers in what was accomplished and how the health of the nation fared under his administration. So...it really went to prove the status of a man's service during the Vietnam period doesn't define his potential for leadership anyway.

Funny...how the whole Vietnam thing is supposed to be off limits or just unfair to mention when it hurts someone...but fair to mischaracterizeoutright when it can be used to attack the other guy.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by KeliOnyx

 

Everyone IS aware of the fact that Romney's draft card never came up and he never was called to serve, right?

It's a fair debate as to whether his choice of time and place for missionary work the LDS strongly encourages men at his age then to do was to avoid service. We can't know though because the war wasn't drafting any longer when his time would have come. Unlike others...Clinton for example...Who absolutely DID choose other avenues when he would have been headed to S.E. Asia (or up for fair picking anyway), Romney just wasn't the right age.

I'd also note Clinton turned out to be one of the better Presidents if one judges by pure numbers in what was accomplished and how the health of the nation fared under his administration. So...it really went to prove the status of a man's service during the Vietnam period doesn't define his potential for leadership anyway.

Funny...how the whole Vietnam thing is supposed to be off limits or just unfair to mention when it hurts someone...but fair to mischaracterizeoutright when it can be used to attack the other guy.

So, this article (and the many more like it) is not accurate? I don't know - I've only done a few minutes of google research, and it certainly sounds like you know more than I about it. Just wanted to get the facts straight.

truth-out.org...

Romney used his student deferment at that time to avoid military service. He then left Stanford for two years of Mormon missionary work in France, for which he received another draft deferment.

When Romney was back in the states – after his mission work – and had transferred to Brigham Young University, the draft was changed to a lottery. Romney received a high enough number that he permanently escaped being in the military, even though he supported the Vietnam War and the draft.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Actually I didn’t vote for Clinton because of it either what I find despicable is how Romney pushed for others to fight in his stead. That shows me more about his character than all the flip flopping and stories of dogs on the roof. I have many reasons why I don’t like him or trust him but this really sticks out to me.

If it was as simple as it being a few character defects then maybe I could hold my nose and vote for him but it goes far far beyond that.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Again we have to disagree (I hope this does not continue, but at least it's civil). You say Romney should not be allowed to be commander in chief because he didn't serve in the military although he also wanted others to serve.

The current President was educated outside the country in a muslim school. While I will not say that is a bad thing (as I have a great respect for many things in Islam), its main views are counter to american standards. The current President surrounds himself with men of less than dubious character. A known domestic terrorist, a preacher that embraces the 9/11 attacks on America, people that praise the most brutal communist leaders in recent history............ the list is potentially endless.

Yet somehow, these things do not disqualify President Obama from holding the office. This goes far beyond a double standard.

I do not see this election as being a choice between the lesser of two evils. I simply see it as choosing the evil we each like best.

I am a product of the "cold war" and I know that. Through my 20+ years in the military our worst threats changed over time. This list includes:
1) communists
2) white surpemecists (sp)
3) militia/domestic terrorists
4) foreign terrorists / Islamic radicals

The president at one time or another has aligned himself with at least two out of four. That's 50% of America's anticipated security threats over the last 20 years.

Now some would say that people change over time and I would agree. But, if people change over time and we make excuses for President Obama, why then do we not afford Romney the same thing? Could it be bias?

reply to post by redtic

Ouch... I really need to just start referring back to my own research, already done. You're right.....and for the second time in as many weeks, my memory doesn't do justice to what my time and hard work already did once. Err.. Sorry for my factual errors on going off the top of my head. To make it simple and not dig any deeper here...I'll point back to what I did spend a good part of an evening searching to put together on it awhile back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fortunately, I've already made the point about how irrelevant I think this has all become at this point in time and comparing someone doing Missionary work in his early years to someone whose claim to fame is the "choom gang" for the same formative years is a rich one to start with. Something about glass houses and throwing stones comes to mind.. lol

That will be another plus about this election. it ought to be the last one we hear claims and whines about who did what for what reason or to whom in the Vietnam War. Even vets I've heard talk are sick of it being a mud slinging point every election, one direction or the other.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Well, if that kept you from voting for Clinton...then I'll say I respect your intellectual honesty and consistency. If that does form a principle thing and that's enough to determine your vote for President, then I'd say that's one of the better thought out and founded reasons. At least when it's actually from personally held principle.

reply to post by 200Plus


I admit I have bias against Romney for many reasons. I find his dealings with Bain capital and connections to the Panama bank and investors very suspicious which if his tax returns were released could clear him of it or could connect him to it but we will probably never know. If referring to a black white thing then I should tell you I am white. This is about character, policy, and integrity for me. I am not exactly happy with Obama but I do think he is the better choice in this election. I spent 15 years in the Army ever since Kuwait I even switched to National Guard during relative peace time and I stayed in until I was injured and could no longer use my right eye. Most elections I have voted 3rd party sometimes republican this will be my first time voting Democrat. I do not trust Romney and I have reached the point where I just cannot figure out where he stands because he has changed his position so many times.

I am glad this can stay civil as well.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by 200Plus

 

If referring to a black white thing then I should tell you I am white. This is about character, policy, and integrity for me.

By biased I meant you had made up your mind on President Obama and on Romney. I imagined (based on your postings) that it was about your feelings for both men. It never entered my mind that race would have anything to do with it.

reply to post by 200Plus


Sorry then. I was just covering all bases. That is why I said if.
There have been several times that people have accused me of voting solely on race in these forums which has never influenced me. I am glad it doesn’t influence you either.

I have chosen Obama this goes around so I guess that means I am biased.

Personally I think there should be a prerequisite for anyone holding office to have at least served one tour in the military but that is just my opinion.

Originally posted by muse7

edit on 10/25/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

What progress? Can you point to specific numbers and/or economic statistics based on what was on the table and what was delivered?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Just to be clear I don't and never had an issue with those that "dodged" the draft. No one especially a teenager wants to go off and die in a war that they can't begin to understand. I do however have an issue with a man that would hide behind his religion or political connections and then advocate that scores of others die in their place. That is a definable difference between Romney and Clinton, neither wanted to go and fight, one protested to end the war the other protested to continue it. I do have issues with the GOP acting like Romney is some kind of messiah, after they went out and attacked Kerry's service record. That was when I realized the Republican Party has no scruples nor any morals as long it is their guy that wins.

Personally I never voted for Clinton, if you must know I voted for Perot. It was my first Presidential election and I was quite proud of reaching the milestone. In fact there are many points in Clinton's term that I have often felt that his past avoiding the war kept him from doing things that he should have done.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by 200Plus

 

Personally I think there should be a prerequisite for anyone holding office to have at least served one tour in the military but that is just my opinion.

So you don't think these guys should have been allowed to be President?

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by 200Plus

 

Personally I think there should be a prerequisite for anyone holding office to have at least served one tour in the military but that is just my opinion.

So you don't think these guys should have been allowed to be President?

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams.

I am not looking to argue over this and I do believe we have had some decent presidents that did not serve in the military however it is my belief that it should be required of our officials especially in the case of the president who would reside as Commander and Chief. My reasoning is simple. Those who have served, fought, and endured the military would be the most cautious when it came to sending others into battle. Someone who knows nothing of that life would not have respect for it.

Anyway that is my opinion on the matter.

reply to post by muse7


I see the OP say

I didn’t expect Powell to endorse Obama again but his reasoning is sound.

Then you say

we are in far better shape than 4 years ago. Just because some neocons refuse to believe it does not mean its not true.

So, General Powell; yes I said "General", is supporting a traitor to the United States Constitution. The same United States Constitution that the "General" has sworn to protect and defend? Not just once with Bush, but again with Obama.

And you somehow think the the US is better as a country and economically then it was 4 years ago?

The only way any of this makes sense, is if you and the OP with his/her sound "reasoning" are fighting for socialism and communism.


I guess I'm just a "neocon", or some other cleaver name because I believe in the United States Constitution and I believe that wasting trillions of taxpayer money on other countries, and failing companies like First Solar is not how you "fix" the economy.

But please keep believing you have security without your rights, keep believing you can fix the economy by hemorrhage money.


And people ask me why I lost faith in the people of this country.

reply to post by GunzCoty


Neo-con means neo conservative.

If you read the article you would have read this part.

"There's some very, very strong neo-conservative views that are presented by the governor that I have some trouble with," Powell said.

Of course in your mind it all comes down to that we

are fighting for socialism and communism.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Wasn't arguing just asking really. It is something that I felt needed a comment. I just happen to believe the opposite should be true. There have been by far more Republic's destroyed by soldiers that decided to wax political than there have been military forces destroyed under a civilians command. It is also important to note that while the President is the Commander-in-Chief he is also a civilian.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You have your opinion of Powell.

Me, he was the only one of Bush's circle I had any respect for.

He paid the Ultimate price for the Neocon Repubs, as his Statement at the UN gave the push for the Iraq War Legitimacy, his career ended with that Speech.

I think thats it exactly.

I think he's an honourable man who stood up at the UN and argued for a course of action that killed thousands needlessly. All based on utterly fraudulent intelligence pushed by Ws handlers.

I expect he doesn't like that much.

As for running for president? Would you do it if you knew you would have to sell all your principles to do it? The only people who will do it want it as an end in itself. Nobody with principles can get there. Thats how it works.

reply to post by justwokeup

An added note on this....as some seem to think Powell was a patsy or victim of circumstance. He spent 4 days reviewing the information that formed the UN speech he'd give and the basis he'd then go on to use in tavelling the the World Capitals to sell the plan.

(Report Dated June, 2003)

Fresh evidence emerged last night that Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, was so disturbed about questionable American intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that he assembled a secret team to review the information he was given before he made a crucial speech to the UN security council on February 5.

During a series of meetings at CIA headquarters last February, initiated by Mr Powell, the secretary of state was reported to have reviewed the intelligence reports on Saddam, his arsenal of chemical and nuclear weapons, and his possible links with al-Qaida. The ostensible purpose of the exercise, carried out over four days, was to decide which should be included in his address.

Source

Some draw fine lines of distinction where it suits them. By his own actions? He vetted it, personally, and took 4 days to do it. Bought and Paid for...and he doesn't weasel out after by saying it was all Bush's fault. Just like Libya today in terms of blame. The buck stopped with Bush, as it should, and someday maybe in a meaningful way for an investigation too. The buck stopping up higher doesn't absolve those directly below who did everything to make it happen.

Oh......and the reason he may not have ever run for President (and never likely will run for an office subject to election type scrutiny) likely does have to do with Vietnam. Search his name in relation to My Lai. It's a small world. I'm not saying he earned what the press would do to him over that, but it's likely been the biggie to make a game ender in that direction.