I see the BBC lead story is that hip hop and rap fan Colin Powell has endorsed The One. Quelle surprise! Now whilst I accept this is news to those who do not follow these matters closely, I wonder why Justin Webb gets the opportunity in the same item to eulogise as to how “re-assuring” this endorsement will be for “many” American voters. Webb also uses it to further attack Sarah Palin, citing “rumbles of discontent” within republican ranks at her selection by McCain.The BBC chooses to use RINO Colin Powell’s quote about Obama being a “transformational” President without ever quite defining exactly what will be transformed. I guess that will wait until AFTER they get their man in power and the socialisation of America can then proceed apace.
If you check out the sidebar of linked stories also note the care of language being selected “Bitter Blow” to McCain, “Calm Obama” and “more bad news for McCain”. The BBC, like so much of the liberal media, has abandoned ALL pretence of impartiality as concerns the US election and is blatantly cheering on Obama. The difference is, we are forced to pay for the BBC’s obamania and THAT is what is most objectionable. We need “transformational” politics her in the UK as well, starting with the abolition of the license tax.
I find it interesting that Obama is only about 3-6 points ahead in the polls and the BBC think it’s all over, yet the Tories are over 10 points ahead over here and the BBC reckon McBean is back in he game.
Am I the only one who thinks Obama should be worried that with so much “media bad news” for McCain he’s still very much in the game?
I read the linked piece. I certainly wouldn’t say that the bias is overt. Very much a matter of opinion in fact. I dont think that presenting this piece as an example of BBC bias would convince a neutral observer of this site’s case of the BBC’s endemic bias. Which is a pity. The BBC is endemically biased.
Powell’s endorsement does nothing to diminish this punter’s profound admiration and respect for him, but as far as I am concerned he has made a disasterous mistake.
An ideological soul brother of an unrepentant terrorist who has engaged an organisation he helped train that is committing huge-scale voter fraud is on the verge of becoming the next President of the United States because the mainstream media has acted as his defence committee. That is scarey. Very scarey. Its like living in a proto one party state.
Lastly, I would say that the issue of BBC funding and bias are, of themselves, separate issues. One could argue though that the very fact it is publicly funded reinforces the demand that its Statutory Duty to impartiality should be enforced.
For the amusement of some and the horror of others
http://www.andrewiandodge.com/2008/10/13/if_bush_got_totally_fed_up/
Colin Powell says Obama is the best man for President.
The same Colin Powell said Blair’s intelligence on Saddam’s WMDs was exquisite.
“I find it interesting that Obama is only about 3-6 points ahead in the polls and the BBC think it’s all over, yet the Tories are over 10 points ahead over here and the BBC reckon McBean is back in he game.”
BBC ; Kings of wishful thinking
Say, is that the Colin Powell who wrote in his autobiography about his angst over his son marrying a white chick?
Why, yes, I believe it is. Hey, what are the odds that this would be just about the only time the BBC refrains from injecting a racial angle?
Ah, but according to the Drudge Report: “It’s not about race”
http://www.drudgereport.com/
A “republican” who endorses a socialist is not a republican. Move on…
Funny that the BBC is spouting on about Powell. In 2003 they were spitting venom at him for the invasion of Iraq.
“Funny that the BBC is spouting on about Powell. In 2003 they were spitting venom at him for the invasion of Iraq”
And so was Obama. Oh well. Brothers again.
I just observe:
– that on the same day that Colin Powel rejected his political tribe in favour of his racial tribe, the BBC’s Strictly Come Dancing, together with its overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon viewership, selected both of the only two couples made up by a black from which to chose a reject.
So, is there a pan-continental, indeed, universal innate stifled racism, which only manifests itself in such oblique, suppressed, impossible-to-prove ways?
I suspect there is. Given the BBC’s highly educated staff’s proven, innate, gross, swaggering bigotry towards conservatives, there’s reason to suspect that Colin Powell’s and Britain’s populace share similar masked prejudice towards differing races.
Discuss.
Relative to the others, were they good dancers? Good looking? Beguiling personalities whom the public have warmed to? Underdogs in the eyes of the voting public?
Were they well known enough to have national mass recognition and a strong fan base? Did they fall into the obscure middle range or recede into the realm of nonentitydom where not enough people would remember them sufficiently or have a particular reason to want to vote for them?
I guess the cries of “Uncle Tom” will stop now.
I feel sorry for Colin Powell, to be honest. He tried to do his duty as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, then as Secretary of State, and all he got far more hassle for it than I think he bargained for. It can’t be fun being tarred as a race traitor for so many years. His family probably took some heat in social circles, too.
It’s not especially brave of him to lend his endorsement now that some elements of the press and Nancy Pelosi are 100% certain of an Obamessiah victory. He can take the heat off himself and his family from the Uncle Tom garbage, and partially redeem his own media image by distancing himself as much as possible from Boooosh and Iraq. That’s his choice, I guess.
I don’t feel sorry for him. Why was he accused of being a race traitor? Was it because he was a Republican? Or was it because of the war, specifically.
He did very well for himself out of the Republicans, didn’t he? So now he turns his back on them. Hm…not nice. But what I find particularly loathsome is his attack on Sarah Palin, seeing the spurious reason given. Double standards, I fear.
In short, I consider him an arse.
I just observe:
– that on the same day that Colin Powel rejected his political tribe in favour of his racial tribe,
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 19.10.08 – 9:28 pm | #
What the hell has race got to do with it?
Richard Lancaster | 19.10.08 – 10:20 pm:
What the hell has race got to do with it?
Quite possibly, nothing. I merely air the point that, being the world’s most famously impartial, most famously anti-racist news organisation, the BBC is itself nevertheless ridden with bigotry of a different sort. Accordingly it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that other mere mortals’ behaviour is in fact a manifestation of similar, innate, well-documented bigotry.
Don Warrington for president.
Webb’s analysis on the 10pm news was that the Powell endorsement was significant because it might reassure middle america. legitimate comment. And it is quite a blow for McCain, surely. It’s headline news on sky too, who give it a similar treatment.
Someone earlier on this site compared Obama with Blair, and to a point i see this. A resurgent left, on the back of a long period of right wing hegemony. Perhaps Powell is Obama’s Sun moment. Quite a few right leaning papers in the US are i understand going for Obama too.
The pendulum will swing back one day, as it is doing in the UK.
Sorry, but I have been wary of Colin Powell’s judgment ever since it was reported he was AGAINST the First Gulf War. It doesn’t bode well for any spirited defence by an Obama administration of Georgia or the Ukraine.
I hope Powell will be happy sitting beside Welsey Clarke and Obama’s mentor Zbigniew Zbrinski. Boy this is going to a tough few years!
Dont worry.
When McCain wins, as he surley will, a root and branch review of the BBC US Election coverage will be required.
Questions will have to be asked as to why the BBC threw impartiality out of the window and partook in the biggest mass-delusion since…………………er, John Kerry last time.
At a similar point in the 2004 election Kerry was in a similar position in the polls.
Limbaugh: Where are the inexperienced, white liberals Powell has endorsed?
Rush Limbaugh said Colin Powell’s decision to get behind Barack Obama appeared to be very much tied to Obama’s status as the first African-American with a chance to become president.
“Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race,” Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. “OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.”
As for Powell’s statement of concern this morning about the sort of Supreme Court justices a President McCain might appoint, Limbaugh wrote: “I was also unaware of his dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star [general] and secretary of state and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let’s hear it for transformational figures.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Limbaugh_Where_are_the_inexperienced_white_liberals_Powell_has_endorsed.html?showall
John Bosworth,
Colin Powell has shown consistently poor judgement, as you point out. But he will now be hailed as a hero of the left.
JBH
The BBC admits itself that it is not impartial. What else do we need to know, to have the BBC closed down under its own charter?
Answer; far far far more then an ordinary British person especially, would feel comfortable imagining.
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organization with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”,
Which is of course is true as far as it gos, which is not very far at all.
The point is, why this is the case and who exactly made the BBC become such a thing.
This is my personal theory, which to me at least makes perfect sense. My own problem is that I cant understand why it does not to so many people on this site that constantly say they distrust and despise the BBC and much of the rest of the MSM.
The establishment control the BBC/entire media either directly or indirectly, by what proportion I have no idea, as I dont work for the BBC. Even if I did, would most likely be none the wiser.
The BBC has always done a pretty good job at persuading us that the establishment is conservative in nature, which in some ways it is. However the establishment has a problem with conservatism as it is expressed within the common people.
Conservative people dont need the government or the people that control it. In a conservatives perfect world virtually everyone would be free prosperous and self sufficient. There would be plenty of surplus wealth for individuals and independent charitable organizations to look after those that can not, or even will not take proper care of themselves.
Therefore the elitist system of control would be weakened to the point of eventual collapse. This is no good for the establishment. They certainly have ALWAYS known this to be the case, most likely since way before medieval times. Which was a time when the Religion was employed to do the BBC’s current job of spreading lies, propaganda, disinformation and division.
The BBC’s entire reason for being is therefore to keep us poor, dependent, ignorant, divided and basically as insecure as they can reasonably make us. Sometimes very unreasonably.
A job the BBC has been doing for a long time very successfull indeed.
Therefore ‘cultural liberalism’ is IMO another term for ‘periodic radical cultural destruction’, some may call this leftism. Therefore has very little to do with liberalism, which is a conservative principle, still less to do with real socialism, which is deeply illiberal, and dictatorial not to say murderously inhuman and ultimately non productive. So therefore the BBC is not socialist as such, because it prefers to use subtle propaganda and mind control, rather then force to control its victims.
The words and actions of the entire media not just the BBC, is anti conservative, and highly pro establishment. So totally pro establishment in fact, that the people who actually represent said establishment are never mentioned anywhere on the MSM. MI5 for example only usually gets a mention when the new James Bond movie comes out. The Royal Family only gets mentioned, when the BBC can be seen to be taking the piss out of them, for no good sensible reason.
Without periodically created wars, crime, civil-unrest, poverty, racism, serious drug or drink addiction, child abuse, etc etc etc etc, we dont need to be paying ever more indirect or direct taxes to our ruling elite class, to finance their imperialist ambitions. This will not do for the establishment, not do at all. Their money is mainly invested in and their power comes from the corporate structures they conspire to support. These include the media, the military establishment, the judicial system, most of the worlds industrial and mining capabilities, and last but not at all least, almost the entire international banking system.
This is now 2008 not 1808, but still these characters are essentially playing the same games they did 200 or even 5000 years ago. So quite frankly if we no longer have the free mind to tackle these people using our collective conscious at least, in spite of copious amounts of real but deliberately confusing information on the WWW, we deserve to carry on being their mind controlled slaves, as well as just their tax and debt slaves.
Disinformation is everywhere information is available, they make perfectly sure of that. However the truth is the truth, whether it is on the 9o’clock news or not. The whole political truth of course is absolutely never on the BBC or the MSM, except sometimes hidden between the lines. As you have to your own cost found out by your own personal experience.
You were not fighting just the BBC, if you had been, you might have stood a chance of achieving something. You were in reality taking on the British establishment, who essentially totally control the BBC. Which always was a battle you could have never won on your own, and most likely not won either with several entire armies behind you. Many have had plenty in the past, and look where they got them. In the end, bombed back into the stone age usually.
Atlas Shrugged:
Wonderful response.
Remember the famous sketch “Political Speech” written by Frank Muir and Denis Norden for Peter Sellers. In it, Sellers – giving a stump speech as a candidate for election – says “I do not consider existing circumstances likely”.
The BBC reality of what is going on in the USA is so skewered that for the first time not only do I despair – but I actually think they are taking the piss. It’s the only explanation! (There is another explanation: that we are wrong, that Webb is right, that Frei is fair – but I honestly think not).
As you say “The BBC’s entire reason for being is…to keep us poor, dependent, ignorant, divided and basically as insecure as they can reasonably make us. Sometimes very unreasonably” and I would add, convince us existing circumstances are not likely.
erm for what it’s worth, Alesha Dixon won last year’s Strictly Come Dancing (voted by British public), she is black (mixed race), as is Javine Hylton who was voted for by the same British public as our Eurovision entry a couple of years ago (and nicked the lovely Alesha’s husband) – so J Boyd Hunt’s opinion is not based on facts.
EVERYBODY LOVES OBAMA?
Hmmm. Not the Catholic Church. After they criticised Joe Biden (unreported on the BBC) comes this:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081019/D93TGS480.html
Let’s see if the BBC does anything with the story. It does spoil their Obama is the ‘universal answer’ narrative. And after all “in a rational world” (as Justin Webb calls the BBC sphere) abortion should be thought of as just another method of contraception and available on demand, no?
PS: I see that Justin Webb is well informed from “reliable” sources as usual. In his most recent blog he confirms his prediction that Palin is a failure and states that Powell is the final nail in McCain’s coffin with support from the following:
The Times on the Internet: “A leading collaborative online newspaper. We are community-focused and driven by the desire to provide people with the tools and information needed to understand today’s news. Our website was established on May 9th. 2007. We are a division of the Performance Marketing Group, Inc.”
A long history of good reporting there. “The Times on the Internet” in turn regurgitates a clip from NBC’s (oh, yes!) Saturday Night Live…(why do politicians give these second rate comedians the “oxygen of publicity”. Did Plain really expect a fair shot?)
Next Justin takes us to an outfit called the “Examiner.com” who’s political editor lays out his credentials with “I believe Colin Powell is correct in his assessment” To underline their political position the “Examiner.com” links to guess who? The New York Times, the BBC, the Washington Post and Topix!!!
Next on Justin’s list of impeccable sources is – wait for it – Los Angeles Times. And finally another internet site AZ Central.com
So the BBC is now not simply getting its news and views just from the Guardian. But as long as they support Justin’s position they’re OK, I guess.
Funny because the latest polls show the race tightening again. Could it be ‘the one’ is not so loved?
Atlas shrugged | 20.10.08 – 12:25 am
You were not fighting just the BBC, if you had been, you might have stood a chance of achieving something. You were in reality taking on the British establishment, who essentially totally control the BBC.
You’re right – I wasn’t just up against the BBC, but I don’t see it as you do.
There’s no massive controlling conspiracy out there – just a colossal liberal groupthink, aided and abetted by debilitating acquiescence among conservatives.
First and foremost, the media is populated overwhelmingly by liberals. The Guardian is their icon. And, though I’m not keen on making generalisations, over this last ten years I have learnt a great deal about liberals.
It matters not to them that liberalism’s prime tenet is the rejection of bigotry, for in the way they have acted in the Cash for Questions affair (both at the time of the affair during the early-mid 1990s and later when the true facts emerged) they have shown that it is indeed their natural inclination to act in the most bigoted way imaginable, embracing outrageous lies and injustice, simply in order to protect their icon and defeat their conservative foes.
Though conservatives and Conservatives do indeed have a capacity for partisanship, my experience is that they don’t readily promulgate lies or avert their eyes to injustice to gain political advantage. They do, however, suffer from terminal naïveté, cowardice, weakness, and failure to act collectively when such action is required.
For example, at the suggestion of Gerald Howarth MP, in October 1998 I launched my book Trial by Conspiracy in a press conference in the House of Commons. Gerald chaired the conference, supported by Baroness Turner and N+C Hamilton. Had Gerald (or Neil, or Lady Turner) had any idea of just how tight and tribal the Westminster lobby was, and is, the Commons would have been the last place he would have suggested to launch a book exposing malfeasance by The Guardian in cahoots with the then Labour Opposition. A better bet would have been the Isle of Mull.
Ever since then I’ve struggled against a wall of silence that will only be overcome when conservatives realise what the issues are at stake – but my experience tells me that conservatives are neither activists nor sufficiently shrewd and so I accept that my work will never achieve widespread acceptance.
Apart from the Westminster lobby, and the fierce liberal groupthink within the media and legal system, newspapers have their own cliquey tribal loyalties too. There’s an all-pervading ‘dog doesn’t eat dog’ mentality which provides for solidarity among the papers on the big issues. Moreover, the conservative and liberal press have interwoven business links: only last week the Telegraph Group announced an allegiance with Autotrader, of which The Guardian is the controlling shareholder. It’s not their only business tie-up either.
But my story isn’t unique: in researching the Cash for Questions affair I’ve come across a similar example of a major story of media corruption being snuffed out, involving the then Conservative MP for Winchester John Browne. I discuss this briefly in my profile of Mark Hollingsworth.
Browne battled for years to have his story examined but came up against a wall of silence erected by the Westminster lobby, aided and abetted by a stultifying weakness and naïveté among his Conservative colleagues, whose own indifference to his cause had been fashioned by the conservative media’s failure to interest itself in it.
So, I offer my work not so much as a defence of a particular former Conservative politician, of whom I have no particular regard, but rather as a citable documented case study that proves all of the above.
No doubt Powell will get endless abuse from the usual saps who seem to see political parties as football teams – to be supported irrespective of how sh*t their representatives and ideas are. Last I saw he wasn’t an elected respresentative so he’s not double crossing voters (a la Shaun Woodward), just making up his mind on the basis of the facts.
The Beeb story would be fine and then they ruin it with the pointless and pathetic “thoughts” about middle class voters and Palin. Why do they do it, why??!!
Obama attended Bilderberg this year… it’s already been ‘arranged’ hasn’t it?
Regarding the Strictly Come Dancing result with Heather and Don coming last and having to do the dance-off : it did seem quite shocking at the time, especially as they were definitely not the worse dancers. Only nearer the finals do the British public start voting for the best dancers. This sort of thing always happens at this stage where the more well known “celebrities” or most inept are kept in for the ‘bizarre fun’ factor. What Heather and Don were up against is audiences voting for that Andrew whathisname GMTV presenter, even though he’s a useless dancer, and voting for the swimmer Mark (also a useless dancer) because of his body, and John Sargeant (can’t really dance) because he’s apparently cute and cuddly.
I would give the British public the benefit of the doubt and believe that the usual pattern of the show is being played out.
I am not shocked at Powell’s seemingly contradictory decision — America is, well for another few weeks, still a free country. No one seriously thought him a conservative, did they?
But his intellectual incoherence? Now that is truly shocking in a man previously noted for his command of the issues.
Clearly he cannot sustain his decision with any degree of consistency based on his public record.
He, more than anyone, SOLD the war in Iraq to not only the American public, but to the world. More than Bush, it was Powell.
An honest man could not then come out and endorse the candidate who based his whole primary campaign on the (admittedly bogus) idea that he had “always been against the war in Iraq.”
It’s not merely a disconnect. It’s a frackin’ brain aneurism.
If Powell had the courage of his 2003 convictions, he’d have to say that by endorsing Obama now, I was wrong then.
Also — Obama should be asked by the likes of the BBC how come he can accept the endorsement of the man who was the public face of the war he apparently disagreed with in 2003.
Surely Obama could only accept Powell’s endorsement if he now came out and admitted he was wrong. Or vice versa. But it will be a cold day in hell before the BBC posited that embarrassing question.
All Powell’s other so-called “reasons” for endorsing Obama sound equally incoherent — and embarrassingly thin, bordering on bogus.
So it would seems that he proves that race trumps all. Sorry, but in the absence of any other “splanation” that must be true.
Is Colin touting for a gig?
The intense and constant barrage of pro democrap propaganda by the MSM is breathtaking!
The BBC news last night saw the anchor and reporter almost delerious with triumph at being able to report a celebrity endorsement(Powell) who by the way endorses rap music so Perhaps not the best judge of things is he?
I predict an increase in hysterical promotion of the MSM icon untill McCain wins, then it will be ‘the US are too racist’etc excuses coming out.
The media have yet to learn that they cannot decide the outcome of elections in the USA no matter how hard they try, but it does illustrate their childish belief that they can infect everyone with their favourite choice!
If anything the MSM hysteria will put people off just as it has with another pet preoccupation of the metropolitan elites.
I thought the BBC anchor was so exited and triumphant as he blurted out the Ombama mania it looked like he was having a ‘panty accident’!
There are going to be some long and miserable faces on the media luvvies mugs soon, aaaahh didums den!
“If Powell had the courage of his 2003 convictions, he’d have to say that by endorsing Obama now, I was wrong then.”
“Also — Obama should be asked by the likes of the BBC how come he can accept the endorsement of the man who was the public face of the war he apparently disagreed with in 2003.”
Bullshit, the bloke is an independent citizen. There’s more than Iraq at stake in the election. He might think Obama is/was wrong on that but still the best man for the job. If I was a Republican strategist I’d be wary of indulging in such peurile bad-losership especially as a) this doesn’t seem massively important despite the Beeb spinning to the contrary and b) McCain himself has been big enough to accept it with grace.
“All Powell’s other so-called “reasons” for endorsing Obama sound equally incoherent — and embarrassingly thin, bordering on bogus.”
Dunno that the economy and the quality of vice presidential candidates are “embarrassingly thin” issues but I’d agree that he certainly wasn’t massively detailed in giving his reasons and it certainly leaves room for intensive further quaestioning by the media. which won’t happen. obviously.
The Daily Politics is covering the Clinton corruption of the market place to force banks into lending to minorities in the early nineties.
This is the first i have heard of this on the main stream press (the blogs have been buzzing about this for months).
The DP is not pulling punches here.
Radio 2 / Sarah Kennedy’s newspaper round up 6.55am this morning – For the Democrates we had the Colin Powell thing, of course, plus a piece from the Guardian on how right Obama is for the presidency. For the Republicans, we had a story about a Palin impressionist.
Great balance.
Cockney,
It is embarrasingly thing, especially if you look at the VP’s he is comparing.
One has worked her way up without having to rely on political payouts.
The other has worked his way up by taking advantage of dirty money from lobbiests wanting to buy his vote.
Personally, its a no brainer. Id more likely trust a VP who has a history of fighting against political corruption before Id trust one that has taken advantage of everything his office can give him (including large scale payouts and preferred loans for property that would otherwise be outside his pay).
right…excuses at the ready in 5, 3, 2…. 🙂
Mailman
Hey but that’s your opinion on the issue – it doesn’t make the issue itself any less weighty in the big mix of reasons for voting for a candidate 😉
If he had said he’s going with Obama on the basis that wears better ties then that would be embarrassingly thin…
Rather O/T here but did any of you guys see Sophie Raworth versus Peter Mandelson on the Andrew Marr Show?
Wow!! Princess Mandy was nearly spitting blood…I’m pleased to say.
Wonder how long before the Beeboids either edit the show or refuse to let her present it again.
Gaz: Did they mention that the chopping up of these sub prime loans and flogging them off was done in London not the USA as our regulation was softer than the USA?
Cockney, what I said isnt opinion…what I mentioned ARE THE FACTS.
Biden has taken advantage of payouts from MBNA and has also benefited from a number of preferential housing loans (for a property that would otherwise be outside of his reach).
These are the facts mate…but then if you feel more comfortable having someone as “trust worthy” as Biden as number two, then more power to you 😉
Mailman
cockney. I’ve re-read my post. And I’ve read your so-called “response.”
Actually it’s you who full of bullshit. GFY.
And thanks for your remarkable insight that Powell is an “independent” citizen. Wow, Such a penetrating observation.
Of course, Powell is a tad more than that.
He used to be Secretary of State, and was responsible for convincing the American people of the benefits of the war in Iraq: a policy which the man he is endorsing has based his whole campaign of rejecting.
Some of us call that a stinkingly hypocritical stance, unless he now repudiates his own actions in 2003.
I’m afraid it is Colin Powell who is full of BS. And you too, of course.
BBC R4 Today’s Jim Naughtie on the election trail with the Democrat presidential candidate:
“He’s speaking to a vast crowd of tens of thousands here in Philadelphia, cradle of the American revolution… This country is now gripped by the most passionate campaign of modern times, and this is a challenger with a spring in his step… In these last days he’s going to argue that the administration has divided allies abroad just as policy on the economy, health care and social provision has divided Americans at home… the passions in these pews, with a swaying choir, a kind of rolling hallelujah chorus and a candidate hugging the preacher, catch the intensity of the campaign… (his) hope is that among the hundreds of thousands of new voters his party has persuaded to register • a hundred thousand in Pennsylvania alone • he will get his majority…. We can now say that this passionate contest, which both sides say will shape an era for America, is reaching a climax, one that the pastor of Mount Herman Church himself might say will, one way or the other, shake the world.” (As reported on 26 October 2004, a week before John Kerry lost)
Hugh Fitzgerald’s critique of COLIN POWELL, re-Obama, and re-Islam:
“Colin Powell and Jihad: A dereliction of duty” (Hugh Fitzgerald):
[Extract]-
“Why should we forgive Colin Powell? What’s so wonderful, what has ever been so wonderful, about him? And when will he give back that Jaguar to Prince Bandar?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023173.php#more
Jack, I beg to disagree.
Obama has policies other than his opposition to the Iraq war (extremely wooly though they might be when they’re not outright scary) so suggesting that he’s based his “whole campaign” on this is flat out wrong.
I’d like to know whether Powell now regrets being the face of the pro-war arguments in 2003. But even if he doesn’t its perfectly possible that he disagrees on this issue but still considers Obama to be the best candidate.
So basically I conclude that you’re just parroting a blinkered partisan line, have no capacity for independent thought and have thrown your toys out of the pram in a big girly strop because things haven’t gone your way. It’s a good job your candidate doesn’t share your toddler tantrum tendencies.
GFYYT
Cockney | 20.10.08 – 4:57 pm |
I’d like to know whether Powell now regrets being the face of the pro-war arguments in 2003.
That’s what I think is going on here, and I’m sure he and his family have been hearing insults for years about being an Uncle Tom.
He’s probably pissed off about the WMD thing, and pissed off that he was replaced as SoS by someone he doesn’t really like. And from what I recall, the Bushies didn’t exactly praise him on his way out the door, either.
That’s what looks like to me, anyway.
This predictably partisan BBC article about racist American voters needs a full fisking but I’ll limit myself to the obvious point – the one statistic missing from Laura Smith-Spark’s report is the percentage of African-Americans voting for Obama.
From the IHT:
“There is unprecedented pride among African-Americans over Obama’s candidacy”, (Democratic pollster Peter Hart) said. “He will get more than 95 percent of that vote, and the turnout will be massive.”
But none of them are racist, of course.
(Laura Smith-Spark – yet another BBC hack reporting on the US election. I also missed Peter Bowes in my last list.)
David, I agree. I recall that there were always rumours of stresses between Powell and senior members of the Bush administration. I think the assumption was that they thought he was an obstructive liberal and he thought they put ideology above preactical realities. Maybe he’s getting the Republicans back – maybe he’s worried about his reputation within his “community” – maybe he just thinks Obama is better than McCain (or Obama/Biden better than McCain Palin).
It would be nice to know more. I just reject the view that this makes him some sort of “traitor” or a hypocrite.
“When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?” etc etc
How many have we now got roaming all over the US?
I must say I feel embarrassed to come from the same country as these excitable and uncontrolled bandwagon jumpers and sensationalists.