Colin Powell's endorsement

[Bubba1]

Just read this morning that retired 4 star General Colin Powell, a Republican whose resume includes being chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of State under GWBush, and National Security advisor for Reagan, has just endorsed Obama...again .

General Powell is well respected for his knowledge of both international politics and the military. Just curious, how do our ex-military / Romney supporters feel about that?

[stebo0728]

It is what it is. Can't fault the man if he endorses his true preference. And I know nothing of Gen. Powell that would lead me to believe he would endorse otherwise. Doesn't sway my own endorsement, but doesn't upset me either.

[telcoman]

Just read this morning that retired 4 star General Colin Powell, a Republican whose resume includes being chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of State under GWBush, and National Security advisor for Reagan, has just endorsed Obama...again .

General Powell is well respected for his knowledge of both international politics and the military. Just curious, how do our ex-military / Romney supporters feel about that?

A wise choice

Telcoman

[Marenta]

Well, considering that Obama is holding the standard on foreign policy and acquiescing to the military... why would he not endorse BO?

[WDRacing]

I wish he had Hilaries job these last 4 years. I know a certain Ambassador that, were he still alive, would be saying the same thing.

[Bubba1]

I wish he had Hilaries job these last 4 years. I know a certain Ambassador that, were he still alive, would be saying the same thing.

You clearly respect him, I do too. But his endorsement of "Obamalamadingdong" suggests he sees Obama as being a better choice for President than the candidate of his own party. Does that make you pause?

FWIW, he also said up he was not switching parties, but just not supporting Romney.

[WDRacing]

Clearly respect him? I think he would have done a better job keeping our people safe is what I meant. Anyone that supports Obama doesn't have much of my respect.

[telcoman]

Clearly respect him? I think he would have done a better job keeping our people safe is what I meant. Anyone that supports Obama doesn't have much of my respect.

There are some here that should be signing up and packing their bags.

http://www.jetblueelectionprotection.co ... one&sc=PPC

Telcoman

[Bubba1]

There are some here that should be signing up and packing their bags.

http://www.jetblueelectionprotection.co ... one&sc=PPC

Telcoman

I see Costa Rica as a destination. I wouldn't mind having a vacation home there, plus I'm hopelessly addicted to their coffee.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Anyone that supports Obama doesn't have much of my respect.

That's...pretty f*** up really.

[WDRacing]

Why is that?

[Marenta]

This is 'Merika. We have the freedom to think about whomever in whatever way we want. If Brian doesn't give respect to those that support Obama, that's his deal. It doesn't mean a hill of beans to anybody other than him. Now, if you want that respect, that's something that should be earned. However, should all of your hard work provide no results and respect will not be given because of your political views, then it is probably for the best that the respect isn't there. The respect isn't worth fighting for if somebody won't offer it simply because of a difference in opinion on a single subject.

TL;DR: It doesn't matter.

[stebo0728]

I respect Colin Powell a great deal. He's entitled to his own opinion and endorsement. Respect does not carry agreement as a prerequisite.

[Bubba1]

Why is that?

I'm guessing he feels that one's choice in a single Presidential election does not normally define the person. For example, one can respect General Powell despite disagreeing with his presidential endorsement.

[themadscientist]

I wish he had Hilaries job these last 4 years. I know a certain Ambassador that, were he still alive, would be saying the same thing.

Pure speculation, nothing to see here.

You clearly respect him, I do too. But his endorsement of "Obamalamadingdong" suggests he sees Obama as being a better choice for President than the candidate of his own party. Does that make you pause?

No.

This blind allegiance that puts party before country is how we got into this mess. I respect Powell's choice even if I disagree with it.

[WDRacing]

Knowing what we know about Benghazi makes me lose respect for CP and his endorsement.

[themadscientist]

You assume Romney would have done better. Not sure why you care who Powell endorses anyway. I thought it was rather clear he's not a Republican lapdog after the way they used him to justify the Iraq adventure.

[WDRacing]

You assume Romney would have done better.

Pure speculation, nothing to see here

Not sure why you care who Powell endorses anyway.

Point to where I said I cared? I'm simply replying in a thread about CP at the same time expressing my lack of respect towards anyone supporting Obamalama.

I thought it was rather clear he's not a Republican lapdog after the way they used him to justify the Iraq adventure.

I've never seen CP as anyone's lapdog, certainly not the GOP.

[themadscientist]

You have said that his endorsement of Obama has caused you to lose respect for him. Your support of Romney is known, thus it is quite fair to deduce that your respect for him is conditional on his endorsement of a candidate you support. Further, your support of Romney must mean you think he would do a better job unless you are actively supporting someone you think would do worse.

Deciding to respect or not respect someone based upon a decision demonstrates at least a minor concern about the subject being advocated for. If you didn't care at all you wouldn't be here.

The lapdog paradigm is more of of a general idea amongst GOP wonks, not specifically yours. I don't find you to be a blind supporter of them, more of a utilitarian one. You see them as a means to an end, not a religious dogma like some. I can work with you. The others, no. They checked their brains at the door.

[WDRacing]

My respect isn't entirely conditional on whom your voting for, but you lose a good chunk of it by supporting Obama. Since he was a 4 star, I recognize that he was a politician in uniform. But he still has a wealth of military experience and has been through the best war colleges available etc. Knowing what he knows and continuing to support Obama makes me judge him very harshly.

So it wasn't a matter of caring who he endorses, his opinion doesn't sway my own in any matter. I'm "here" because I like the Politics forum and this is one of the only active threads.

The Benghazi assault would not have happened under Romney's watch.

[Marenta]

I find it's the most even policy to extend everybody the most basic of respect, regardless of a difference in opinion on any matter. It's when the person proves themselves to be of low moral and ethical character that I lose that respect. However, I don't assume that everybody wants or needs my respect.

I just had a 1/2 hour "discussion" with my father on the phone about voting and politics and blah blah blah. I told him that I respect his decision for vote for whomever and I will not judge him. I did however tell him that I do not appreciate him spewing talking points from either party. I don't care which Kool-Aid somebody has drank, I just don't want to be forced to drink it.

[themadscientist]

The Benghazi assault would not have happened under Romney's watch.

Based on what, his hawkish command of the Massachusetts national guard or the administration of rifle matches during the Olympics?

I just had a 1/2 hour "discussion" with my father on the phone about voting and politics and blah blah blah. I told him that I respect his decision for vote for whomever and I will not judge him. I did however tell him that I do not appreciate him spewing talking points from either party. I don't care which Kool-Aid somebody has drank, I just don't want to be forced to drink it.

OHHH YEAAHH!

[stebo0728]

Its not fair to say the assault would not have happened. You can say perhaps it would not have been the debacle its been under Obama. I think that's speculative at best. Perhaps accurate speculation, perhaps not. I don't believe Romney would have been asleep at the helm on this. But again, speculative...

[WDRacing]

The Benghazi assault would not have happened under Romney's watch.

Based on what, his hawkish command of the Massachusetts national guard or the administration of rifle matches during the Olympics?

Its not fair to say the assault would not have happened. You can say perhaps it would not have been the debacle its been under Obama. I think that's speculative at best. Perhaps accurate speculation, perhaps not. I don't believe Romney would have been asleep at the helm on this. But again, speculative...

I can very well say it wouldn't have happened. How many times was the Embassy attacked this year? Twice. Two attacks that were ignored as part of Obama's "Terrorism" has been beaten policy. Without that policy in place we would have had actual security IN PLACE ALREADY. The Embassy directly asked for beefed up security, and was DENIED. Why do you think they wanted more security? Because they had been attacked 2 friggin times already. Each time the response was measured. When the third attack came they knew there would be no response because the guards were armed with fvcking flashlights!

The people in place to make the decisions that were made, were put there by Obama and followed his policies. Remove the policy of ignoring terrorists and they'll go away and the attack doesn't happen.

[Bubba1]

Bri: I know you want to blame Obama and his appointees for ignoring warnings and the lack of security at our embassies, but if you dig a little more, it appears Mr. Ryan and his Republican Congressional collegues contributed to the embassy security problem just as significantly.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank explains below:.


"For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security."

Interestingly, it appears Ms. Clinton issued warnings about embassy security last year, and yet your VP candidate not only ignored her warning but voted to reduce funding for embassy security despite it. So to answer the question of whether Benghazi would have been prevented under Romney/Ryan, the answer is looking more like NO.

[WDRacing]

So you want to blame the budget for not having security on the ground at an Embassy that was previously attacked 2 times earlier this year? My thoughts? My thoughts are to gtfo with that weak s*** Joel. We could have easily moved funding from...oh...lets say the f*** Embassy in France, which btw, is guarded by fully armed United States Military personnel. I'm not placing the blame entirely on Obama, but it's his administration following his policies. It was Obama that made the call to cover this up, which is exactly what he's trying to do.

We could easily cut security funding at Embassies around the globe, just don't pick the ones where you're, without a doubt, surrounded by known terrorlst cells. I mean hello, we're talking about Libya. It's not exactly a tourist destination.

Please tell me you're not trying to justify this as some sort of budgetary issue.

You're also forgetting about the Marines that are stationed right up the way at Tripoli. Why weren't they simply brought down? They don't cost anyone extra money and I have never met a Marine that didn't make me feel safer when they were around providing security. They are purposely trained for this, ffs I bet they were climbing the walls to get down there and help. Told time and again, stand down. DENIED. Say it with me Joel, they were DENIED help.

I've deployed to awful places, I've worked with JSOC (Joint Special Ops Command), I spent 6 years with AFSOC (Airforce Special Ops Command) when our mission was infil/exfil and I spent another 6 years in CSAR. What happened in Benghazi isn't how we do things. It's a glaring example of a disastrous fvckup and people were killed because of it. We don't leave our own to be cut down by the enemy. We didn't even scramble the quick strike teams from Sigonella Italy, they could have been on station in 4 hrs. There was an AC130 that could have been on station in 4 hrs as well. You don't have to give permission to fire, but you can deploy your forces. You can make options available. These aren't people not used to making these type of decisions, nor Operators unfamiliar with dropping into hazardous fire. That's what they do.

DENIED.

Fend for yourself.

HELP IS NOT ON THE WAY.

Am I upset? You're God Damned right I am. It hits close to home for me bud. I have friends in the field right now. My oldest Son just started the Enlistment process. My wife still serves. She's going to Afghanistan next year for a rotation, her 3rd trip to the Middle East. I'd like to believe that the people I love aren't going to be left hanging in the wind because it's inconfckingvenient to escalate the situation just before a fvcking election.

[themadscientist]

I can very well say it wouldn't have happened. How many times was the Embassy attacked this year? Twice. Two attacks that were ignored as part of Obama's "Terrorism" has been beaten policy. Without that policy in place we would have had actual security IN PLACE ALREADY. The Embassy directly asked for beefed up security, and was DENIED. Why do you think they wanted more security? Because they had been attacked 2 friggin times already. Each time the response was measured. When the third attack came they knew there would be no response because the guards were armed with fvcking flashlights!

The people in place to make the decisions that were made, were put there by Obama and followed his policies. Remove the policy of ignoring terrorists and they'll go away and the attack doesn't happen.

No, you can't. You are ascribing a statement of certainty to something that is uncertain vis a vis a Romney administration's actions. If you want to say "more of this will happen under Obama" I'm willing to go along with that as we have a body of evidence to base that assertion on. The only thing we can say with any degree of certainty about Romney is he will likely botch the press conference after the fact as we have enough examples of that to reasonably speculate.

To say that Romney would do better is a complete guess and I can't let you talk about how cool a toy is while it's still in the box. You are monday morning quarterbacking a team against an expansion team that has yet to take the field and pronouncing victory. nope.



I too am concerned about our troops in the field. I'm tired of seeing the blood of our young men and women spilled on foreign soil so some rich mother****er's stock portfolio can tick up a point. I have been told by many including you that it's about jobs this time; okidoki. Hey, by the way, Romney has pretty much promised to increase foreign adventures if elected. Why do you think he says it and promises to increase defense spending?

I can appreciate the struggle between competing priorities for voters, but to talk about Romney like he is some sort of savior when he's demonstrated he's f*** clueless leaving only pollyannish empathy for our troops as a possible driving force, an empathy he has yet to show for any group you could name, that's a real long hail mary pass. I'm not buying it. He has not seen fit to wear the uniform or to let his sons put themselves in the same s*** sandwich he would so gleefully put ours. Where do you get the impression he's any better? I'm not saying service is mandatory for street cred on military issues, but neither is the lone fact that the person is not a person who has demonstrated he is very bad.

Stick with this phrase. "Romney isn't Obama." It worked for Obama in 08' by reminding people he wasn't Bush since he similarly had some credibility issues. It's pretty much all you have to justify your support for the Massachusetts forehead and his buddy the Furby.

[WDRacing]

Furby...that's funny s*** right there. Agree to disgree on this one bud. I think the Benghazi attack was a direct reflection of Obama's BS policies and his incompetent staff. For the sake of argument though, because I realize that you're right, I can't say with 100% certainty anything would be different in the past. So I'll crank it back to 98%. Furbies ftw.

[themadscientist]

I agree 100% with your analysis of the Obama white house's abilities and activity.

I could never figure out what about Ryan's face was weird until someone mentioned it.

It's the eyes. s*** creeps me out.

[WDRacing]

That's hilarious.