Saturday, October 25, 2008

Who is Barack Obama?

What we don't know about Barack Obama outweighs what we do know about Barack Obama. We don't know in which country he was born; if born in Hawaii, we don't know which of two hospitals he was born. We don't even know his name, it has been changed or modified at least four times. His education is a mystery beyond the school name. The records of his law practice in very limited.

Who is the guy running for President of the United States of America on the Democrat Party ticket?

What we don't know about The One:

1. Occidental College records — not released
2. Columbia College records — not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — not available, sequestered by faculty
4. Harvard College records — not available, sequestered by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration — not released
6. Medical records — not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — not available or thrown in garbage
8. Law practice client list — not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — none written
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — none written
13. Christian baptismal record – not released or not available
14. Illinois State Senate records – not available or not submitted for archival
15. Clerking offers from US Supreme Court Justices - none proffered
16. Barack Hussein Obama - name used post Pakistan trip
17. Barry Soetoro - name used in Indonesia
18. Barack Dunham - name formerly used incorporating mother's maiden name
19. Barry Obama - American/Indonesian fusion name

What we do know of The One:

1. Smells bad in the morning
2. Talks real pretty with a teleprompter, dolt without
3. Used drugs in college, inhaled deeply - "that was the point"
4. Suspicious of white people
5. Believes beloved white grandmother is racist
6. Thinks Muslim morning call to prayers most beautiful sound
7. Befriends terrorists, Marxists, Socialists, Black racists

Who is Barack Obama? We don't know. He could shortly be the President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world, and we don't know who he is, not even his real name or where he was born.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

The Can of Peas

An original short story by Indigo Red.

Bob stood at the kitchen counter, a can of peas in his hand. He softly said, "Jill, this isn't working anymore."

Jill, sitting at the table nearby sipping from a mug of coffee as she navigated through her daily blog reads on the laptop, stopped and said, "No, Bob. It hasn't been working for quite some time."

Bob watched as Jill put down her coffee, slip her toes into her flip-flops, stand, and walk to the door. She picked up her already packed bag, opened the door, and stepped out closing the door behind her.

Bob stood in silence. After a few moments, he looked down at the can of peas he was still holding in his hand. He looked back to the door.

Bob said, "The can opener. It's not working anymore."

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Big Bro Spied on Plumber Joe

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, had his fifteen minutes of fame and he expected to return to his life of quiet desperation. As his minutes rolled over, his life of quiet desperation is being interspersed with moments of sheer terror. Someone or several someones in Ohio were spying on America's favorite plumber within 48 hours of the final Presidential debate by accessing personal Joe data through the government computer system.

From Randy Ludlow at the Columbus Dispatch --

Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers [Dem], the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.

Paul Lindsay, Ohio spokesman for the McCain campaign, attempted to portray the inquiries as politically motivated. "It's outrageous to see how quickly Barack Obama's allies would abuse government power in an attempt to smear a private citizen who dared to ask a legitimate question," he said.
An inability to connect the dots and a failure of imagination is what is truly outrageous. Anyone who has been seriously watching the crap the Obama campaign has been shoveling knows all too well what is behind the Joe the Plumber smears and character assassination attempts.

The Democrat Party and other Liberals view this Presidential campaign cycle not as another election, but as another revolution. No matter what is said to the contrary, or offered up as proof, there is no way to convince the opposition that George Bush did not lie about Iraq, but acted with the best intel available, nor did the President act unilaterally in the invasion of Iraq, but, in fact, had a larger coalition of forces than did his father in the Gulf War. Neither did George Bush steal the election from Al Gore who lost fair and square after Al Gore brought the lawsuit that led to the decision in the Supreme Court as a consortium of newspapers led by the New York Times determined after they counted all of the ballots with and without hanging chads. The vast majority of the Patriot Act existed even before Bill Clinton was President and much was added by him. Under George Bush the extant and dispersed laws were brought together under one title.

No matter. They was robbed and vengence is theirs.

The opposition believes as a matter of absolute truth that this election is a war that must be fought and won by any means necessary. Lying, spying, intimidation, vandalism, physical assault, theft are all legitimate tactics and stratagems. In revolutions, laws are ignored and broken because they are the laws that allowed the evil in. They firmly believe that after the Obama Revolution has cleansed the country, all liberties will be restored and everyone will return to their law biding ways.

They just don't get it. After their little revolution, the ruling elite will turn those same tactics on the very people who put them in the offices of power. Joe the Plumber is only the beginning.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Ron Howard, as Opie, Says Vote Obama

The Andy Griffith Show is a jewel in the Hollywood crown. Every week Andy would dispense common sense wisdom to young Opie and the simple folk of small town America from right there in Mayberry.

Ron Howard played Opie thirty years ago. As Opie and Ron, he couldn't wait to grow-up like all youngsters. Well, now he's all grown-up, a successful film maker, and bald. And now he's dispensing his own wisdom to all of us simple folk in small town Mayberrys all across America.

Opie: Hey, Pa!

Andy: Hey, Op. You look like you got somethin' on your mind, son.

Opie: Pa, why are people so set on stayin' on the same road that's been messin' us up for so long?

Andy: Well, OP, people are funny. Sometimes change scares 'em and they'd rather keep on doin' the same old thing that's been messin' 'em up than change to the thing that can help 'em.

Opie: Like the time I wanted to fish for Lake Trout usin' peanut butter and jelly as bait?

Andy: That's right, Op. You got stubborn and wouldn't switch no matter what I said.

Opie: When I'm a grown-up, I sure would like to vote for somebody as good as Mr. Obama.

Andy: Well, if you stay healthy and strong, avoid any felonies, stay away from the butterfly ballot I bet you'll get a chance.
Seems to me that in this skit, Ron Howard, as Opie, is not understanding his own simplistic example. Andy says people don't want to change because it scares them with the insinuation being that Andy isn't one of those people frightened of change. Opie opines that it's like the time he wanted to try catching fish in a totally different way. Andy affirms the idea, but says he counselled against the new PB and J method because the old way worked best and no matter what he said, Opie was going to go his own way.

Opie appears here to be in the position of someone challenging the way things have always been done with Pa standing in the way of progress. Andy thinks the old way works just fine, but also seems to advocate for the new. Opie should be very confused. I know I am. Exactly who was being stubborn, Opie or Andy? I don't know. Seems both were being stubborn by the definition of the skit. Opie was dead set on trying something new, peanut butter and jelly, and Andy was dead set on using traditional bait, earthworms. Of course, the outcome of the episode was that Opie learned the old traditional method worked and the new experimental method was a total failure. The episode was instructive, funny, and heartwarming just as the Andy Griffith Show always was.

Ron Howard is trying to tell us that in the current Presidential race, the things that have been done in the past eight years are old methods, the traditional way of doing things. And they don't work. We need a change, a change to something that hasn't been done before, something new and non-traditional. But, in the TV episode example, the new way (Peanut Butter and Jelly/ Barack Obama) didn't work while the old traditional way (earthworms/ John McCain via George Bush) did work.

Ron Howard is confused. But, thanks, Ron. I'm not confused. Your video effort has reinforced my heartfelt desire to vote for the traditional American values and methods that have worked for more than 200 years. The new ways Obama wishes to try here have been tried in other places and no where have they been successful for 100 years. The new Obama way has failed everywhere and every time it's been forced upon people yearning to breath free.

I must ask the small town folk, please, cut Ron some slack. He played a beloved character in our youth. We learned much from Opie and Andy, much of which we learned was pure hogwash. But still...

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Obama Taking Millions in Illegal Campaign Dollars

Barack Obama is smashing all Presidential campaign contribution records. CBS News says Obama has $164 million going into the last full month of campaigning. He claims all of the dollars are legitimate contributions from legal US citizens. Many people disagree, however. Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, with very capable investigative teamwork from several others like Cathy, have evidence that Obama is lying about the sources of his campaign's wealth and he knows full well much of the loot is ill-gotten.

Sometime soon, Obama will exceed in dollars the number of people in the known universe, or at least, the number eligible to donate to a US Presidential campaign. Not all of the $200,000 per hour raised comes from the US and US citizens. The foreign monies appear as odd numbers of dollars and cents. Almost everyone will donate in whole numbers no matter what currency is used. But, when that currency is exchanged for another currency, odd numbers occur. With international banking being nearly instantaneous and anonymous, the campaign contributions can and do come from everywhere, including Gaza, and from anyone, including HAMAS and Hezbollah.

From Atlas Shrugs:

There is enormous amount of money being secreted into the Obama campaign from foreign sources. It is fairly safe to say these countries will be richly rewarded - Kenya, Indonesia but most of all - Obama will drop a load on the UN.

The crooked, corrupt international one world global warmers have the largest stake in this election.

Back on August 14th, I wrote that Julia Gorin told me a funny story. About four months ago. Her husband's co-worker wanted to see what would happen if he tried giving a contribution to the Obama campaign via a credit card. He used his Macy's card. The system accepted it. He tried the same with McCain's campaign, and the transaction wouldn't go through.

Atlas reader Craig submits to me the following,

I may have just uncovered how the Obama campaign is facilitating massive donation fraud.

I’ve read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering; how is this possible?

I run a small internet business and when I process credit cards I’m required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchasers address must match that of the cardholders. If these don’t match, then the payment isn’t approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:

Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999

Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn’t ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and… “Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift.”

This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it’s donors. Also, I don’t see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn’t allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn’t match the purchasers name.

Not unless Obama's campaign is warehousing donations (held back) and any that fail or are rejected by the credit card companies or for any other reason are covered by illegal donations.

In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.

Yes, and then cover them with illegal funds.



PS I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn’t allow the transaction.

Pss I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went thru using the same credit card. I saved screen shots of the transactions if you want them.
Cathy found this at Free Republic [comment 13, alloysteel] :

Somebody, high up, has access to millions of credit card, and possibly debit card accounts. This is how it works: An apparent charge appears on your account, then through the correction process, it disappears. An unauthorized charge delivers the funds to control of an intermediary, and the intermediary then reimburses the original draft on the account. The intermediary is a wealthy consortium of manipulators, who take the small contribution (always less than $200, so as to avoid the reporting requirements of name and occupation of the original source), thus providing hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of “contributors”, and allowing ineligible contributors to cover up their participation. It would take the research of literally thousands of these accounts to uncover the pattern of “mistaken” charges, and if these accounts are held outside the US, there would be no overview of these transaction by any of the authorities that govern these transfers in this country. The only check on this is to review your own account, and those who had their accounts used in this manner. If individuals or corporate entities are already supporting Obama, or the Democrat National party, or any of the 527s that are anti-Republican, THEY are not going to say anything.

Atlas Shrugs has 37 posts categorized "Obama's Contributions: Foreign and Domestic in a handy section all delineated for easy access. It is by no means easy reading as it is mostly accounting numbers. But, remember, Al Capone was nailed by following the money.

The Old Stream Media is ignoring this story for now and perhaps forever. If they pick it up, Obama may already be in the White House and with the legislative aid of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, may begin shutting down any organ that tries to expose the buying of the Presidency, the defrauding of the American people, and the rape of Liberty by Barack Hussein Obama in his quest for power.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Biden Guarantees Obama Crisis in First Six Months

Joe "Six-Term" Biden, Senator D-MD and VP nominee, guaranteed Sunday an extreme international crisis resulting from the election of Barack Obama. He further guaranteed at the Seattle fundraiser that the crisis would materialize within the first six months and no matter how stupid or inane the Obama decisions may be, Joe Six-Term says we should stand behind The One.

Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.
To tell the truth, this almost makes me want to vote Obama just to see what it is that Biden knows that no one else knows and how he knows it.

Biden also said,
Gird your loins. We're gonna win with your help, Insha'Allah, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man.
OK, Joe Six-Term didn't literally say "Insha'Allah". He said, "God willing," and it means exactly the same thing. He really did say, "Gird your loins" and "Augean stables".

Cryptically, Biden added, "...think about it, literally, think about it...", not figuratively think about it, no. Biden literally said, "literally, think about it." That's serious stuff.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Global Temps Fall, Global Warming Skeptics Rise

They are hard to find and they are few in number, but they are out there and their numbers are growing. What are they? They are Global Warming skeptics and articles debunking the Fried Earth Theory. And why is that happening? Well, it's because the measured temperatures around the planet are falling. The terrestrial temps are cooling to such a degree that all the warming that has been registered over the past 30 years have disappeared, like all of my 401K earnings for the past two years. Gone. Just...gone.

Lorne Gunter, National Post, writes today
that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.

Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate. See: Global Warming, Solar Radiation Linked Say NASA Eggheads

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number." See: Dr. Allegre Non Troppo

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy [weather-satellite scientists John Christy University of Alabama at Huntsville and David Douglass of the University of Rochester] has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Moreover, while the chart ... was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming.
Are we headed for the Day After Tomorrow? Yes, but not in a bad movie kind of way. The day after tomorrow is only another Wednesday. Nothing to fear there. All it means is that once again mothers will be telling their kids to dress warmly before going out.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go dig out my sweaters from wherever I put them several years ago when it was too warm for such things.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Colin Powell Endorses Obama, Troubled by McCain Direction

MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you're prepared to support?

GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president."

And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. 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. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his 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 we 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. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

MR. BROKAW: Will you be campaigning for him as well?

GEN. POWELL: I don't plan to. Two weeks left, let them go at each other in the finest tradition. But I will be voting for him.

MR. BROKAW: I can already anticipate some of the reaction to this. Let's begin with the charge that John McCain has continued to make against Barack Obama. You sit there, as a man who served in Vietnam, you commanded a battalion of 101st, you were chairman of the Joint Chiefs, you were a national security adviser and secretary of state. There is nothing in Barack Obama's history that nearly paralyze any--parallels any of the experiences that you've had. And while he has performed impressively in the context of the campaign, there's a vast difference between sitting in the Oval Office and making tough decisions and doing well in a campaign.

GEN. POWELL: And he knows that. And I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we're facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I'm confident, with people who'll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I'm confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.

MR. BROKAW: And you are fully aware that there will be some--how many, no one can say for sure--but there will be some who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race.

GEN. POWELL: If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud--not just African-Americans, but all Americans--that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it'll electrify the world.

MR. BROKAW: You have some differences with Barack Obama. He has said that once he takes office, he wants to begin removing American troops from Iraq. Here's what you had to say about that: "I have found in my many years of service, to set arbitrary dates that don't coincide with the situation on the ground or what actually is happening tends not to be a useful strategy. ... Arbitrary deadlines that are snatched out of the air and are based on some lunar calculation is not the way to run a military or a strategic operation of this type." That was on February 10th of this year on CNN. Now that you have Barack Obama's ear in a new fashion, will you say to him, "Drop your idea of setting a deadline of some kind to pull the troops out of Iraq"?

GEN. POWELL: First of all, I think that's a great line, and thanks for pulling it up. And I believe that. But as I watch what's happening right now, the United States is negotiating the--an agreement with the Iraqi government that will call for most major combat operations to cease by next June and for American forces to start withdrawing to their bases. And that agreement will also provide for all American troops to be gone by 2011, but conditioned on the situation as it exists at that time. So there already is a timeline that's being developed between the Iraqis and the United States government. So I think whoever becomes the president, whether it's John McCain or whether it's Barack Obama, we're going to see a continued drawdown. And when, you know, which day so many troops come out or what units come out, that'll be determined by the commanders and the new president. But I think we are on a glide path to reducing our presence in Iraq over the next couple of years. Increasingly, this problem's going to be solved by the Iraqis. They're going to make the political decisions, their security forces are going to take over, and they're going to have to create an environment of reconciliation where all the people can come together and make Iraq a much, much better place.

MR. BROKAW: Let me go back to something that you raised just a moment ago, and that's William Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen who's now active in school issues in Illinois. He had some past association with Barack Obama. Wouldn't it have been more helpful for William Ayers to, on his own, to have renounced his own past? Here was a man who was a part of the most radical group that existed in America at a time when you were serving in Vietnam, targeting the Pentagon, the Capitol. He wrote a book about it that came out on 2001, on September 11th that said, "We didn't bomb enough."

GEN. POWELL: It's despicable, and I have no truck for William Ayers. I think what he did was despicable, and to continue to talk about it in 2001 is also despicable. But to suggest that because Mr. Barack Obama had some contacts of a very casual nature--they sat on a educational board--over time is somehow connected to his thinking or his actions, I think, is a, a terrible stretch. It's demagoguery.

MR. BROKAW: I want to ask you about your own role in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Barack Obama has been critical of your appearance before the United Nations at that time. Bob Woodward has a new book out called "The War Within," and here's what he had to say about Colin Powell and his place in the administration: "Powell ... didn't think [Iraq] was a necessary war, and yet he had gone along in a hundred ways, large and small. He had resisted at times but had succumbed to the momentum and his own sense of deference--even obedience--to the president. ... Perhaps more than anyone else in the administration, Powell had been the `closer' for the president's case on war."

And then you were invited to appear before the Iraq Study Group. "`Why did we go into Iraq with so few people?' [former Secretary of State James] Baker asked. ... `Colin just exploded at that point,' [former Secretary of Defense William] Perry recalled later. `He unloaded,' Former White House Chief of Staff] Leon Panetta added. `He was angry. He was mad as hell.' ... Powell left [the Study Group meeting]. Baker turned to Panetta and said solemnly, `He's the one guy who could have perhaps prevented this from happening.'"

What's the lesson in all of that for a former--for a new secretary of state or for a new national security adviser, based on your own experience?

GEN. POWELL: Well, let's start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn't do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn't have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.

MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation...

GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.

MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?

GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don't think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it's the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.

MR. BROKAW: You do know that there are supporters of Barack Obama who feel very strongly about his candidacy because he was opposed to the war from the beginning, and they're going to say, "Who needs Colin Powell? He was the guy who helped get us into this mess."

GEN. POWELL: I'm not here to get their approval or lack of approval. I am here to express my view as to who I'm going to vote for.

MR. BROKAW: There's a summing up going on now as, as the Bush/Cheney administration winds down. We'd like to share with our audience some of what you had to say about the two men who are at the top of the administration. At the convention in 2000, this is Colin Powell on President Bush and Dick Cheney at that time.

(Videotape, July 31, 2000)

GEN. POWELL: Dick Cheney is one of the most distinguished and dedicated public servants this nation has ever had. He will be a superb vice president.

The Bush/Cheney team will be a great team for America. They will put our nation on a course of hope and optimism for this new century.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Was that prophetic or wrong?

GEN. POWELL: It's what I believed. It reflected the agenda of the new president, compassionate conservatism. And some of it worked out. I think we have advanced our freedom agenda, I think we've done a lot to help people around the world with our programs of development. I think we've done a lot to solve some conflicts such as in Liberia and elsewhere. But, at the same time, we have managed to convey to the world that we are more unilateral than we really are. We have not explained ourself well enough. And we, unfortunately, have left an impression with the world that is not a good one. And the new president is going to have to fix the reputation that we've left with the rest of the world.

Now, let me make a point here. The United States is still seen as the leader at the world that wants to be free. Even though the numbers are down with respect to favorability ratings, at every embassy and consular office tomorrow morning that we have, people will be lined up, and they'll all say the same thing, "We want to go to America." So we're still the leader of the world that wants to be free. We are still the inspiration of the rest of the world. And we can come back. In 2000, it was moment where I believed that the new administration coming in would be able to achieve the agenda that President-elect Bush had set out of compassionate conservatism.

MR. BROKAW: But it failed?

GEN. POWELL: I don't think it was as successful--excuse me (clears throat)--I don't think it was as successful as it might have been. And, as you see from the presidential approval ratings, the American people have found the administration wanting.

MR. BROKAW: Let me as, you a couple of questions--quick questions as we wrap all of this up. I know you're very close to President Bush 41. Are you still in touch with him on a regular basis? And what do you think he'll think about you this morning endorsing Barack Obama?

GEN. POWELL: I will let President Bush 41, speak for himself and let others speak for themselves, just as I have spoken for myself. Let me make one point, Tom, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama will be good presidents. It isn't easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that. But I strongly believe that at this point in America's history, we need a president that will not just continue, even with a new face and with some changes and with some maverick aspects, who will not just continue, basically, the policies that we have been following in recent years. I think we need a transformational figure. I need--think we need a president who is a generational change. And that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama. Not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Senator John McCain.

MR. BROKAW: And finally, how much of a factor do you think race will be when voters go into that booth on November 4th?

GEN. POWELL: I don't know the answer to that question. One may say that it's going to be a big factor, and a lot of people say they will vote for Senator Obama but they won't pull a lever. Others might say that has already happened. People are already finding other reasons to say they're not voting for him. "Well, he's a Muslim," "He's this." So we have already seen the so-called "Bradley factor" in the current--in the current spread between the candidates. And so that remains to be seen. I hope it is not the case. I think we have advanced considerably in this country since the days of Tom Bradley. And I hope that is not the case. It would be very unfortunate if it were the case.

MR. BROKAW: Finally, if Senator Obama is elected president, will there be a place for Colin Powell in that administration? Maybe as the ambassador at large in Africa or to take on the daunting task of resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issue?

GEN. POWELL: I served 40 years in government, and I--I'm not looking forward to a position or an assignment. Of course, I have always said if a president asks you to do something, you have to consider it. But I am in no way interested in returning to government. But I, of course, would sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me.

MR. BROKAW: You're not ruling it out?

GEN. POWELL: I would sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me, but I'm not anxious to rule it in.

MR. BROKAW: General Colin Powell, thank you very much for being with us this morning. Appreciate it.
NBC, Meet the Press

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.