Colin Powell Trashes Mitt Romney's Team Of Foreign Policy Advisers

That's telling it like it is.

Colin Powell's interviews these days are about selling his book about his personal views over time.

Here is another interview with Powell last night, that I found extremely interesting. His views of why Reagan was so effective are different than what I'd have expected, and then at the 4-minute mark, he talks about why he chose Obama over McCain in 2008.......

See: Colin Powell on 'Hannity'

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Colin Powell Trashes Mitt Romney's Team Of Foreign Policy Advisers

That's telling it like it is.

Whoops! Should we listen to the general?

Don't I recall that listening to the generals was a good thing to do?

Good for Colin Powell for disputing Sean Hannity's claims that the President is constantly traveling the world apologizing. Powell would make a good running mate for Mitt Romney giving him the foreign relations and military expertise that Romney lacks. Oh that's right, Powell supported President Obama in 2008.

I do have respect for Colin Powell and want to believe he is being genuine.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Good for Colin Powell for disputing Sean Hannity's claims that the President is constantly traveling the world apologizing. Powell would make a good running mate for Mitt Romney giving him the foreign relations and military expertise that Romney lacks. Oh that's right, Powell supported President Obama in 2008.

Powell is hedging his bets. For my money he can stay with the Democratic party a choice he made in 2008

Powell knows Willard's foreign policy advisors are all neocons and are part of the bunch of reich wing loons that got us into Iraq and who are in favor of actions against Iran and Syria.

On another website, neocons have posted that, when it comes to foreign policy, they have more confidence in Sarah Palin than they do in General Powell.

I don't care what anybody says - that is down right scary !!!!!

Too many burros.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Good for Colin Powell for disputing Sean Hannity's claims that the President is constantly traveling the world apologizing. Powell would make a good running mate for Mitt Romney giving him the foreign relations and military expertise that Romney lacks. Oh that's right, Powell supported President Obama in 2008.

Actually, Willard might make an adequate running mate for General Powell.

Powell is a super heavyweight and Willard is a super featherweight.

Originally Posted by coralway

Actually, Willard might make an adequate running mate for General Powell.

Powell is a super heavyweight and Willard is a super featherweight.

If you would watch the video interview of Powell I put in Post #2 above, you'd see that Powell did not consider himself a super heavyweight while serving under Reagan.

In fact, while many would have termed Reagan "too simplistic" or "old simpleton" in the scenarios Powell described with Reagan, Powell was humbled and in awe of Reagan's visionary simplicity and clarity of thought and convictions.

Romney will get my vote, but I will be concerned about how he might change American foreign policy, which in my mind has been a dramatic improvement over the Bush years. Some media sources share the concern. From the Washington Post recently...

....If we take the candidate at his word, a Romney presidency would move toward war against Iran; closely align Washington with the Israeli right; leave troops in Afghanistan at least until 2014 and refuse to negotiate with the Taliban; reset the Obama administration’s relationship with Russia; and pursue a Reagan-like military buildup at home. The Washington Monthly dubbed Romney’s foreign policy vision the “more enemies, fewer friends” doctrine, which is chillingly reminiscent of the world Obama inherited from Bush.

In March the Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention told the Romney campaign it could win over “recalcitrant Christian conservatives,” reported the Washington Post, by “previewing a few Cabinet selections: Rick Santorum as attorney general, Newt Gingrich as ambassador to the United Nations and John Bolton as secretary of state.” That latter suggestion, which might seem ludicrous, not to mention terrifying, is more plausible than one might think....

Few advisers personify the pugnacity of Romney’s foreign policy team better than Bolton. He has been a steadfast opponent of international organizations and treaties and seems never to have met a war he didn’t like. Shortly before the invasion of Iraq, he told Israeli officials that Syria, Iran and North Korea would be the next US targets. Over the past few years Bolton has been an outspoken proponent of an Israeli attack on Iran. “Mitt Romney will restore our military, repair relations with our closest allies and ensure that no adversary—including Iran—ever questions American resolve,” Bolton said when endorsing Romney. “John’s wisdom, clarity and courage are qualities that should typify our foreign policy,” Romney responded

.

I lost all respect for Powell, what little I had left, when he knew Richard Armitage "outed" Valerie Plame. He let Scooter Libby take the rap.

Powell's rating in my book has diminished when he put his uniform away and started playing politics.

What is he waiting for to commit to his man, Obama? To see if there is a better deal available from else where?.....like any other good political position.

btk

Originally Posted by ilovetv

If you would watch the video interview of Powell I put in Post #2 above, you'd see that Powell did not consider himself a super heavyweight while serving under Reagan.

In fact, while many would have termed Reagan "too simplistic" or "old simpleton" in the scenarios Powell described with Reagan, Powell was humbled and in awe of Reagan's visionary simplicity and clarity of thought and convictions.

What does that have to do with Willard?