I read with some interest, your endorsement of Barack Obama, for President of the United States.
Sir, it is without any question, that your service to our country places you in a very unique position. You served under Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, and George W. Bush. You were consulted by Clinton and George W. Bush, even after you were no longer in government or under service to an administration. From service to the United States in the military to your time in the State Department, you have served the country.
You have served our country well, and for that reason, your endorsement, and your comments are to be taken seriously.
I will therefore look at your words, and take them very seriously.
"I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama."
Why do you believe this? I believe the reason is important.
One of the main reasons why - according to you, was:
"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."
You further stated that as great as McCain was, he would:
"execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda with a new face and
with a maverick approach to it. And he'd be quite good at it. But I think we need more than that. I think we need a generational change. And I think Sen. Obama has captured the feelings of the young people of America and is reaching out in a more diverse, inclusive way across our society."
When asked what finally pushed you into supporting Obama, you stated that:
"it was in the period leading up to the conventions, and then the decisions that came out of the conventions, and then just sort of watching the responses of the two individuals on the economic crisis. It gave me an opportunity to evaluate their judgment, to evaluate their way of approaching a problem, to evaluate the steadiness of their actions. And it was at that point that I realized that, to my mind, anyway, that Sen. Obama has demonstrated the kind of calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach to problem-solving that I think we need in this country."
When a reporter asked you about the negative tone of McCain's ads, you responded with:
"It troubled me. We have two wars. We have economic problems. We have health problems. We have education problems. We have infrastructure problems. We have problems around the world with our allies. So those are the problems the American people wanted to hear about, not about Mr. Ayers, not about who's a Muslim or who's not a Muslim. Those kinds of images going out on Al-Jazeera are killing us around the world."
You then tell the world that your vote is not based upon the fact Obama is black:
"If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago."
"I can't deny that it will be a historic event when an African-American becomes president, and should that happen, all Americans should be proud — not just African-American, but all Americans — that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It would also not only electrify the country, but electrify the world."
You informed Mr. Brokaw that you reached your decision, in part due to Obama's
"ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."
Mr. Secretary, you have a unique position when viewing these issues, and I respect you for that experience. However, I have reached an unfortunate conclusion - you have rendered your usefulness at an end. I could never vote for you now.
I would urge you to review the quotes I have listed above and consider them - it is the sum of these statements that prevent me from considering a vote for you, were you to ever run for the White House. I do not believe you would, nor do I believe you could, but I could not.
Your experience as a military general does not indicate or suggest that your decision making skills are adequate for a presidential candidate. Your time in the State Department was without great result - you served your president, and did so, well. That alone does not mean you exhibit the qualities necessary for a president.
Your statements as to why you support Obama render your judgment suspect.
Sir, you know, as we all know - a decision is reached based upon an analysis of the candidate - their position on domestic and international issues, and a general all around determination.
You have decided that based upon an all around evaluation (choosing Palin) that McCain is not the best choice. You see him as turning to the Right, reaching out for the Far Right. Sir, the Far Right pundits have turned against Palin. She is not far right, in any way, shape, or form. She really is very middle of the road American. Not American as in - she is and everyone else isn't, just that she is very middle of the roadish - on family, abortion, religion, and culture.
I assume you have an issue with at least one of these, and a larger point, and will sort that out in a moment.
On domestic issues - which ones sir? That McCain does not want to rebuild infrastructure? When did he say this? When did he say he would not sort out economic policies? It was under a Republican president that the mess was sorted out - the hundreds of billions in bailout. So what is it you believe Obama could do better? More regulations, rules, restrictions? That Obama can help us with his health plan, but McCain's health plan will not help us? Is that what you are saying?
I assume you have an issue with at least one of these, and a larger point, and will sort that out in a moment.
Sir, your issue is central to abortion. You want it maintained and fear that McCain will put two more justices on the Supreme Court, who will decide against, and over rule Roe v Wade, and federal aid to abortion will end. You want abortion maintained, and expanded by the federal government. You want it to be an encouraged and protected right all women possess, and Sarah Palin and John McCain do not share your vision. You fear McCain will be forced into nominating far right jurists. On the other hand sir, you do not express any fear that Obama would do the same, as he stated he would, and would include a requirement that any nominee he sends to the Senate, would believe and adhere to his view on abortion. He has a litmus test and said as much. This is central to your support for Obama.
You color it with education and infrastructure, health, and economic policies, but it is clear from your statements that abortion and leftist policy is what you find determinative. Sad.
Sir, on education - the answer is not more money. Anyone who has any understanding of this issue must admit, we spend more than any other country and have one of the worst K-12 systems. Up to 40% of the money sent to the departments of education remain within the bureaucracy, only 60% trickles down, and significantly less than that makes it to the schools.
The answer sir, is not to spend more, but to cut their spending by 10-15%, and force them to use their money more wisely - for the districts and schools, rather than for the bureaucracy and departments of education that serve no purpose but to siphon off funds.
The answer for health care is to NOT create a trillion dollar system. Sir, we have 44-46 million people without medical insurance. Of that number -30-37% are either a) single, b) married without children, and earning around $50,000 a year. They can afford insurance - they choose not to have it. Subtract 13 million and we have 33 million. Of the 33 million, approximately 40% are under the age of 30 - suffering from no medical conditions and without health issues that warrant medical care. That would be about 17 million. Subtract it from 33 million and we get 16 million people. A majority are illegal - remove the immigration issue by enforcing our borders, demanding businesses hire ONLY legal residents, and find and return the illegals (or define a system whereby they receive legal right to work, put them on a list, get them legalized, paying taxes, jobs above board and some of them would end up with medical insurance (say 1 million).
For the rest - sir, buy it for them. It would be cheaper to buy 15 million people insurance than to create a boondoggle of a medical system that would absorb trillions. In Arizona, as in many states, people on welfare would receive what was called ACCESS - state health care services for the poor. It would be cheaper to expand a welfare medical system to encompass the 16 million than to create a medical program that would cost trillions and would expand the size of our already bloated government.
Instead sir, you support a candidate who wants to expand government, sink hundreds of billions into a medical system we do not need, for people who do not need help with their medical care, all to provide medical insurance to 16 million people - most of whom are illegal. The issue then sir, is not medical insurance, it is fixing our immigration system, and your candidate does not support fixing it, he wants to encourage more (a review of history would provide the reason of why - the vast majority if not all new immigrants vote for Democrats, for the first 8-10 years).
Political? Yes, as is everything with your candidate. Sir, it would be more honest if you would change your party to the one more appropriate and closer to you - the Democrats.
You support abortion, you want bigger government, you want greater spending for one of the most inefficient of government entities - the education system, and you support a candidate who is one of the most left leaning candidates in the last thirty years. Sir, when all these interests/positions are taken together, I can reach no other conclusion - you certainly are a Democrat.
You also raised the issue that he is some sort of transnational figure - he rises above simply American politics. Sir, again, you show you are not qualified for the State Department, and especially the White House. no American should care whether we elect a figure who appeals to the world. The world's opinion of our respective leaders should not matter one iota, should not even be raised in discussion. It is irrelevant. John F. Kennedy was also such a figure sir, and he brought us closer to nuclear oblivion than any time I, or any private party, is aware. He appealed to the world sir, and he accomplished NOTHING while president. The Congress was Democratic, the White House was Democratic ... and he accomplished NOTHING sir. It was not until Johnson, that any of Kennedy's bills got out of Congress.
We do not base out elections on whether the world likes us and it is more dangerous to even raise this issue than if we blew ourselves up with a nuclear weapon. The world has a great deal to be ashamed of and we must NEVER capitulate to their petty issues.
This raises the most significant of issues with your endorsement - Barack Obama has stated he would cut the military budget. He has no choice sir. And you know well enough, the military can afford to lose a few hundred million and not be impacted. However, you also know the military is very much like a body - when you starve a body it burns off muscle first, then fat. The military will shed components we may regard as necessary in order that they keep their pet programs. You know the ones - where they spend billions on unstated programs while brigades and divisions are eliminated or consolidated into other areas.
Obama has to cut the military. He has no choice with all the spending plans he has proposed.
I am well aware we could cut a few billion from the military budget, and not affect anything as far as national security interest is concerned. However, discriminate cutting is not the way Democrats do their slashing - a la Bill Clinton, and the deforestation effort, of the military.
How do we know this? Obama has told us he will do it. In fact, the video clip of his statement is available, if you so chose to watch it. You will temper this with an unstated piece of information - you have had communication with his military advisers who assure you of X, Y, and Z.
Sir, Obama MUST cut the military. Clinton did, and we were so weakened, according to Democrats, that sending 147,000 troops into Iraq weakened us everywhere else. You know well enough sir, that the US was able, until 1991-92, to wage a world war in TWO different areas of the world at the same time, and have enough resources for defense. That option was erased with Clinton and Obama has indicated he will continue to dismantle the military.
How do we know this? It is not a secret sir. On more than several occasions Obama has indicated that we need to use our allies, work with our allies, go to the UN, and not intervene without the support we lacked in Iraq.
You claim to be watching the negative attacks by McCain - what then about the attacks Obama makes every day - that we did not have authorization to go into Iraq, that it was an illegal war ... sir, does that not get played over and over and over and over and over again on al jazeera, does it not reinforce the views many moronic retards hold, and sir, you know it is not true, yet Obama uses it every chance he gets, as do the democrats more generally. THAT sir, in case you missed it, is negative. The fact we lost in Iraq (Harry Reid - Senate leader of the democrats) before the surge even began ... that sir, is negative, and that was broadcast around the world on al jazeera. THAT is more dangerous to our national security than calling Obama a Muslim or a fool. He is not a Muslim, but he is a fool.
You believe sir, that the US should place itself in a position militarily that we will never again be able to act unilaterally in a major area of the world? You do if you support Obama. That view is supported by his statements, and his intention to cut the military. Liberals believe the US actions vis a vis the military are more often wrong or bad ... therefore, cut the military and prevent the US from ever again waging war. Castrate us, like Britain. The British can fight in the Falklands, by themselves - they cannot invade Iraq or Afghanistan by themselves. THAT sir is what the Democrats / Liberals want to do to us. Make us the same as the rest of them - that world you care so much about and what their opinion of us is. It is also necessary if the plan is to cut the military budget - cut the budget, weaken the military, and why not - when we use force it is usually bad anyway - then with the savings, we can make the US a more wonderful place to live because the rest of the world will love us and want to help us when there are problems and no one will attack us because we are minding our own business.
What naivete sir. While you do not admit to, nor own up to, believing the above paragraph, you do through your support for Obama.
the one area you have superiority - the military, will be so weakened under Obama, as to weaken the US ability to act. Of course he and you and others will say otherwise - new machines and newer planes and newer weapons for smaller forces = better. But sir, we know that is not true. Smaller forces would never have been able to invade Iraq, or Normandy. We could never again do what we did in 1917 or 1944, if Obama has his chance to dismantle the military. You would respond that it will never again be necessary - we face no empire that controls all of Europe ... and you would be correct, at this time. You would further add, that if it ever did happen, however unlikely, we would simply muster our allies and rid the world of ...
Sir, our allies do not muster and they do not rid anything of anything without the US leading and challenging the enemies of freedom. Yes the British did fight in both world wars as did the Australians and the Canadians. Today, their militaries combined could not stand against the US, let alone against China.
What will we do sir, when China moves? Call upon the Australians? They would be too busy calling on England, who would have called upon Canada, who would have fainted. Sir, depending upon allies is, like going duck hunting with an accordion. This belief, that the US should not act unilaterally, but for small events - say a couple thousand men in Rwanda or Congo ... is a dominant view of the left, so dominant, it has taken over the Democratic party. It is also the single most dangerous idea they espouse. In every case where this view is attempted, thousands upon thousands, or millions, have died. Yet, dismantling the US military to the point where we depend and must rely upon others for international events is ... un-American sir.
Castrating the military, coordinating our actions with allies, who have and hold different agendas - will place American soldiers and Marines in danger (i.e. Somalia).
The one position you held that allows you to offer a unique position, you just forfeited by your support for a man who has made it very clear that he wants to castrate our military (not withstanding his efforts to make it smaller and more efficient - which will matter not when it comes to China).
What remains is your view that an African American man elected president would invigorate our national politic. Sir, never run for elected office, because you just do not understand. he alienates as many as he includes, he is inexperienced sir, and consequently, it is justified to look at those people who have surrounded him UNTIL he decided to run for president. Those people who shaped and molded his thinking - and that shaping and molding did not occur when he hit 44. It had already been shaped. It is justified to look at Ayers and Wright, in addition to a host of other lesser and petty politicos. Chicago - one of the very few cities that is noted for the criminal elements within politics. New Orleans is the other. It is justified sir, whether you believe it is or not. We have already determined your political and diplomatic experience are lacking - and your judgment is questionable.
I am deeply disappointed in you sir. You served our country, and deserve respect for that service. Your political judgment is questionable, and the fact you believe McCain will simply continue the last eight years - is silly. You know he will not. You have accepted what Obama has said and you use that as a justification for your decision.
My mailman has more federal experience (he has visited 13 countries) than Obama, and I am sure my mailman would find reasonably bright people to advise him - BUT that sir, does not compensate for Obama's wholly inadequate expereince, and poor judgment. The fact he speaks well, looks nice - this is not a beauty contest and speaking well will not save our country.
I am deeply disappointed that you are unable to separate yourself from very small issues, and consider the very large issues - US national security, and our preeminence as a military power that maintains our liberty and the freedom of many other people, around the globe - whether they appreciate it or not.
Powell
Obama
Posts
