Powell Endorses Obama

It would be hard to overstate the importance of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama. The center of the Republican Party is now very comfortable with the idea of Barack as President.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Business, Economics, Foreign Policy, Journalism, Politics, Wall Street and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Powell Endorses Obama

  1. chris says:

    that was beautiful. i don’t think it could be said better.

  2. ryan says:

    i agree. well said by colin powell. this needed to be said by someone that is a part of the right. more importantly someone close to george w. bush.

  3. Rick Turner says:

    Secretary of State, redux?

  4. BobbyG says:


    Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Powell.

  5. sadly, i think the way the Bush used Powell’s reputation for honesty and integrity to sell the war in iraq would make it very difficult for him to function as sec state again.

    But I could certainly see some role in an obama cabinet.

  6. Dan says:

    It goes way beyond that. Last I heard, Powell still insists that invading Iraq was the proper course of action, and bristles at the very idea that the decision for the war was based on lies.

    He is not fit for any position of responsibility without parental supervision. He has disgraced and dishonered himself. The facts have shown that he understood only too well that the “intelligence” had been gamed, and he stuck to the war party anyway.

    His endorsement carries no weight whatsoever with me.

  7. dragonmage06 says:

    I was thrilled with this endorsement. I think it does carry weight in a lot of circles because Powell is seen as being a thoughtful person who really chooses his words and his endorsements carefully.

  8. Jaiki says:

    I am curious to see how the press is going to cover the Powell appearance on Meet the Press. Clearly the endorsement is huge but to me what he had to say about the whole Obama is a Muslim (or Christian) nonsense is much more important. I want to see how this gets covered because what he had to say is how the US should push its soft power so it remains the beacon of hope.

  9. Jon Taplin says:

    Dan-You are just wrong on this one. Whatever Powell’s mistakes on Iraq, he did tell Bush “you break it, you own it”. He’s still an honorable man and as Jaiki says, he said what nobody else is willing to say about the anti-Muslim rhetoric issuing from the McCain campaign.

  10. Rick Turner says:

    Re. Iraq, I think it’s a mistake to overlook the fact that we (and probably Colin Powell) were lied to with regard to the WMD issue that was supposedly at the core of the decision to invade in Gulf War II. Also, don’t forget that Powell was in charge during GW I when the reasons for going to war were much more clear…protecting Kuwait against the Iraqi invasion. Powell was ready for the final march on Baghdad at that time, and he was held back by Bush POTUS 41, an act that Bush POTUS 43 tried to make up for by lying to us all. I think that if Saddam Hussein had been deposed in GW I, things may have worked out very differently.

  11. Fentex says:

    > Whatever Powell’s mistakes on Iraq,
    > he did tell Bush “you break it, you own it”.
    > He’s still an honorable man.

    He deliberately and in full knowledge of the consequences lied to the world on a stage created expressely for the purpose of preventing wars (the U.N) to facillitate the prosecution (against the law of his own country) of a war and the murder of thousands of people.

    Strange behaviour for an honourable person.

  12. rhbee1 says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if the cross-over vote of Republicans for Obama actually swayed the final result to Obama?

  13. gage says:

    I can’t wait to hear what the am radio pundits are going to say about this tomorrow. Will they have the nerve to dis Powell’s endorsement as coming from a man who helped to lie us into a war? Is this a dilemma for them?

  14. Rick Turner says:

    Forgive me for not knowing this, but did Powell know that he was passing on the big lie? Or was he being lied to by those he mistakenly trusted?

  15. Fentex says:

    There is no way Powell, having access to actual intelligence sources as opposed to the clap trap produced for public consumption, believed any of the nonsense he delivered.

    He knew full well it was fabricated nonsense, as did 90% of the people not blinded by misdirected rage about the World Trade Center attack.

  16. Jaiki says:

    Here is a sampling of links to news coverage on the Colin Powell endorsement with my YES/NO note on mention of the Muslim bit in the interview. Most papers covered it though strangely New York Times did not!. By the way I am an atheist so I have no interest in defending any religion, just an interest in fair play and an aversion to bigotry and xenophobia:

    Multi-country coverage

    NO but link to full text of interview








    YES (but same AP story as in Atlanta paper)



    NO NO not even covered on home page


    NO NO not even covered on the home page

    YES – AP story



    ½ YES

  17. Zhirem says:

    Whatever one thinks of Powell, one must admit that he provided a cogent, measured, and persuasive argument for his decision.

    Personally, I believe Powell and Schwarzkopf made the right decisions in the first Gulf War, to *not* go into Baghdad, as it would have been far more messy than what had happened up to that point. So, I do not think that it was a mistake to not pursue that war further.

    However, I *do* believe that there was some measure of complicit behavior with the selling of the Iraq War. It was bullshit. To some degree, Powell *had to know* that it was bullshit.

    I think that history may view the Iraq War as the Bu$h administration’s attempt to ‘provide a lesson’ to the region. Pick on someone we knew was not liked well enough to cause too big a problem, and too weak to be much of a fight.

    The idiots in charge just did not seem to figure that the people they liberated would want them gone almost immediately, and then they also did not bother to read any history.

    Sad really. And a blight on our nation’s history.

    – Zhirem

  18. Roman says:

    IMO, Powell’s endorsement isn’t a “win” for Obama per say; Obama makes history in two weeks, with or without Powell.

    Rather, it represents more of a “cleansing” of sorts for Powell. His obfuscation and silence on the Iraq war compromised his career, to date – over 4,100 US Servicemen and women KIA (@ 31K wounded).

    Endorsing Obama gave him a clean break from Bush – Cheney, without calling them out directly. Expect to hear more from Gen. Powell in the future.

  19. len bullard says:

    I agree, Roman. Powell was badly used by the Bush Administration and his reputation suffered for it. Being a good soldier, he did as told and worked the party line. He knew he was passing on the big lie. The Australian intelligence services were very clear about it so even if he didn’t trust the French and German assessments because they were doing a lot of business with Saddam Hussein, the Aussies were credible.

    I’ve no doubt his endorsement was sincere. It was also timed for maximum impact as many events have been throughout Obama’s campaign such as the Edwards endorsement, so the statement that it wasn’t coordinated is false.

    Powell is a good man and his endorsement is something to be proud of.

  20. gage says:

    I’m glad for Obama to get any endorsements that might help him, but I personally do not see it as a “cleansing” of Powell. It’ll take a lot more than this to wipe the blood off of his hands, I’d say.

  21. Zhirem says:

    Look to Kissinger as an example. That guy has a lot of blood on his hands too, but many world leaders and common folk view him as some sort of diplomatic sage. (Despite his history, debatable, to the contrary).

    Powell has a lot more character, in my opinion, than does Kissinger.

    – Zhirem

Leave a Reply