Some people have been surprised by General Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama. How could Powell, who served in several Republican administrations, endorse a Democrat over John McCain, a storied war hero?

As a lifelong military man, I too will be casting my vote for Barack Obama on Election Day. I deeply respect John McCain’s service to our country. I admire his bravery as a prisoner of war, described by a fellow prisoner as similar to that demonstrated by hundreds of other U.S. prisoners in North Vietnam.

The fields of foreign and national security policy, however, are John McCain’s disqualifying weaknesses, in my view. McCain has demonstrated clearly that he is a dedicated ideologue when it comes to foreign policy, unwilling to consider opinions or even credible evidence contrary to his preconceived notions.

His temperament, marked not only by impatience but also by rude and sometimes hostile behavior, would discourage advisors from bringing to his attention views that might not be consistent with his preconceptions. A President with this combination of significant shortcomings would be a dangerous commander-in-chief, posing an unacceptable risk to the security of the nation.

McCain has adopted, promoted, and sustained the position of the so-called neo-conservatives and ultra-nationalists who believe that the United States should capitalize on American military superiority to spread democracy abroad. Overthrowing the Iraqi government was seen as the first step in transforming the politics of the Middle East by converting governments in the region to democracies friendly to the United States and its interests. McCain reportedly has bragged in private conversations that he was the first neo-con.

McCain has been a consistent advocate of employing military force, as well as diplomatic and economic measures, to overthrow the governments of non-democratic states. In his 2000 presidential primary campaign, he promoted a strategy of “rogue state rollback.” He has served as a long-term chair of the Republican Institute, an organization dedicated to promoting democracy in closed societies, even though most experts agree that viable democratic reforms cannot be imposed but must be generated locally.

Consistent with his ideological predispositions, McCain has gone so far as to advocate expelling Russia from the G-8, an organization of leading industrial nations established to coordinate international economic policies, in order “to improve their behavior” while adding Brazil and India to the organization but excluding China. This obviously would result in the alienation of Russia and China, resulting in a confrontational foreign policy rather than encouraging their cooperation on vital issues of international security and their integration into the international community.

The importance of McCain’s temperament, should he become President, is apparently regarded as too politically incorrect to discuss. By his own admission, however, McCain has “a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public’s.” Of greater significance, he also has written: “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”

In matters of national security and foreign policy, however, it is the nation that will have to live with the consequences of McCain’s temper and haste should he be elected President of the United States.

No President can be conversant with all the problems and issues he or she will face. More important than a specific set of experiences are high intelligence, good judgment, a steady and even temperament, and a willingness to consider options presented by advisors who have been selected for their expertise.

A few months ago, I met in a small group with Senator Obama in his office to discuss a contentious security issue. People with different, even opposite, views had been invited to attend. Obama listened carefully and asked penetrating questions, confirming my observations concerning his intelligence and temperament.

I believe that Barack Obama possesses the requisite qualifications to serve far more effectively as President of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. military than his opponent, John McCain.

Across America, lifelong conservatives are deciding to back Barack Obama for President because they feel he is the right man to be President at this point in our history — even if they may disagree on a host of issues. Conservatives for Change made a fantastic new video of lifelong conservatives who are doing just that.

There are more videos at www.conservativesforchange.com.

This video of Republican soldiers and military family members that just can’t vote for John McCain just came out, and is a must-watch for anyone who is still somehow convinced that he is the best president for our soldiers and vets.

There are extended videos of each individual’s story here. Please have a look and most importantly — send them to anyone who still needs convincing.

It’s 11 days until the election. We can’t rest on our laurels!

Colin Powell, honored soldier, respected leader, and much-loved American, will have helped ease the minds of those who still wonder whether Barack Obama has the makings of a commander-in-chief. By his endorsement, General Powell has said: “I would follow President Obama.” It is not a thing said lightly by those who know what it means to hold the lives of others in their hands, as Colin Powell does know.

It is a conclusion many of us, veterans and active duty personnel, and military families, have reached by different routes in the past year, and it is a good thing to have our judgment affirmed by a man of General Powell’s experience and seasoned judgment.

For judgment is all we have to go on as we reason toward such decisions. History teaches us that biography itself is an unreliable guide to behavior in ultimate command. Of all our presidents, only Dwight Eisenhower could have been expected, on the basis of his demonstrated abilities and behavior over the course of his life and military career to be a great commander-in-chief. He did not fail, but rather exceeded that expectation. We were lucky.

More commonly, American history has shown that perceived experience gives no indication how a man will perform as commander-in-chief. Ulysses S. Grant was a great general, but a failed commander-in-chief. Abraham Lincoln, of undistinguished lineage, with one term in the US Congress under his belt, and sneered at by many as a man of limited ability, would prove to be America’s greatest commander-in-chief.

Election of a leader is, by definition, a choosing, and choosing involves comparisons and the categories of comparison each of us brings to the task are various and discrete. But there are three we may all agree upon and these include temperament; judgment; and, value consistency, or integrity.

Chief Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a second class intellect, but a first class temperament. Demonstrably, Barack Obama has a first class intellect, and there is widespread agreement that he has also an excellent temperament: steady, self-assured, inviting. Obama is not belligerent, not rattled in confrontation. It is a quality to be desired in a person with the ability to take a nation to war.

The approach of an anniversary burned into the memories of many Americans, my own not least, is a proper time for considering the virtues of judgment. October 23 will mark 25 years since the bombing of the quarters of the Marine Battalion Landing Team in Beirut. The year before, 1982, President Ronald Reagan sent US forces into Lebanon in what began as a humanitarian mission following an Israeli invasion that resulted in atrocities against Palestinian refugees. As the caskets landed at Dover AFB, President Reagan was under great pressure to send more forces into Lebanon to avenge the lives of 241 Americans lost. All that stood between senior members of his government who counseled widening the war, and the expansion of the catastrophe in Lebanon, was Reagan’s own cool judgment.

Angry and heartsick though he was, his instincts resisted the arguments for sending more Americans to Lebanon, and he had the confidence to do it. He saw, as others were unable to see, that America’s national security interests were not engaged in that place. He resisted the gambler’s impulse to try to recoup our losses by risking further losses. Thus, there would be no “surge,” no bombastic commitment to “stay the course,” no promises to bring our troops home “in victory.” It is interesting today to consider whether Ronald Reagan would have chosen to take the US to war in Iraq or whether, like Barack Obama, he would have rejected that course.

Finally, Barack Obama has attracted to his campaign many who have grown weary with the downward course of politics in American. He has drawn to himself men and women who have believed, because a faith in their nation and a fresh hope in their hearts compelled them to believe, that a man might yet reach for our nation’s highest office without staining himself, without compromising his integrity along the way.

Obama has not failed their faith; he has not wilted nor wavered in the face of attacks that would at other times, in other campaigns, have been answered in kind. He has demanded that those who follow him follow his principles, and they have not shamed him. It should come as no surprise that so many of those who support Barack Obama are veterans and active members of the nation’s armed forces, men and women sworn by oath to standards of behavior codified in our nation’s Constitution. Senator Obama may not have worn the uniform, but he has the allegiance and confidence of hundreds of thousands who have.

Optimized for Firefox and the latest IE. If you are having trouble submitting your form please email your signature.

In an interview with Marie Claire magazine, Cindy McCain was asked about whether her husband suffered any aftereffects from his time in Vietnam. Her response:

Marie Claire: You met your husband after his POW days. To what extent is that still with you - or is it a part of history?

Cindy McCain: My husband will be the first one to tell you that that’s in the past. Certainly it’s a part of who he is, but he doesn’t dwell on it. It’s not part of a daily experience that we experience or anything like that. But it has shaped him. It has made him the leader that he is.

Marie Claire: But no cold sweats in the middle of the night?

Cindy McCain: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. My husband, he’d be the first one to tell you that he was trained to do what he was doing. The guys who had the trouble were the 18-year-olds who were drafted. He was trained, he went to the Naval Academy, he was a trained United States naval officer, and so he knew what he was doing.

Is Cindy McCain insinuating that there is some kind of inverse correlation between PTSD and competence, and her husband doesn’t have it since he was trained at the Naval Academy, unlike those lowly grunts? Or that draftees experienced more combat stress because they hadn’t volunteered for military service like her valiant husband? Both? The answer has to be yes - there’s no other way to read this.

We have troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan with cold sweats in the middle of the night, and much worse, in thousands upon thousands. None of them are “18-year-olds who were drafted”. The suffering runs the gamut from infantrymen to Elite Special Forces.

It’s worth asking John McCain if he agrees with his wife. It would explain an awful lot of his reprehensible record on veterans issues. Indeed, McCain’s leading of the fight against the dwell time amendment would make a whole lot more sense if McCain in fact doesn’t believe that repeated, extended deployments have anything to do with combat stress — it’s just a matter of training, competence or faith in the mission.

McCain surrogates have been touting Palin’s experience as commander of the Alaska National Guard. Veterans For America, a nonpartisan veterans advocacy group, has been in Alaska all last week researching the plight of the National Guard in Alaska, as they’ve been doing all with other state National Guard forces. Their new report about the Alaska National Guard is damning enough to make Team McCain not want to talk about her leadership of the Alaska National Guard anymore.

If Palin’s record as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard is any indication of of she would serve as commander in chief of all our forces, should she ever have to, it would spell absolute disaster for our already weakened military.

Some selections from the report:

“The post-deployment challenges facing the Alaska National Guard are more daunting and widespread than any seen by Veterans for America’s National Guard Program.”

“For Guard members living in remote villages, it can cost over $1,500 to travel to Anchorage for appointments. VA will reimburse this money; however, the soldiers need pay upfront. In Bethel, Alaskan Native Elders and local VSOs had to help Soldiers pay for their travel and lodging.” i.e. a National Guard Soldier with severe PTSD will have to have $1500 up front to spend if he wants an appointment with the VA.

“The families of Guard deployed from rural Alaska were hit very hard. For instance, those on public assistance lost their food stamps and Medicare eligibility when their husbands were deployed because their household income had temporarily increased. Food is incredibly expensive in the remote villages of Alaska — milk costs $10 for a half gallon. Also, there are no Tricare providers in the villages so as a practical matter many rural Guard family members lost all health care when their loved one was deployed. “

“State of Alaska benefits for state employees who are deployed are paltry relative to other states—a fact worsened by the high costs of basic necessities in the state. The state of Alaska only provides military leave up to 15 days (for instance, California provides differential pay for all state employees when called to federal or state duty for up to 365 days).”

“The State of Alaska’s own readiness ratings demonstrates that the Alaska Army National Guard is poorly prepared to respond to a major domestic emergency. Under the “Training Capability Rating,” each Alaska Army National Guard unit is assigned a rating or T-1—representing the best trained, to T-4—requiring additional training. For every quarter since FY 2005, the Training Capability Rating for the Alaska Army National Guard as a whole has been a T-4, with the goal of reaching a T-3 rating.”

Gen. David McGinnis, the former Chief of Staff of the U.S. National Guard Association, lays the blame with Gov. Palin:

The limited accessibility to mental health care and services as well as the conditions observed and those presented to study investigators by elements of the Alaska National Guard family are equally fitting for the Governor’s personal attention. In addition the lack of sensitivity to the specific needs and assignment limitations of the most rural Alaskan Guard members would also be worthy of a Governor’s direct intervention.

We can find no evidence that Governor Palin intervened on behalf of members of the Alaska National Guard before or after their recent deployments. Where has the Governor been?

Prior to the Vice Presidential debate, Vietnam vet and longtime veterans advocate Bobby Muller wrote on Huffington Post:

Governor Palin’s cavalier approach to learning about U.S. national security policy is offensive, given that she is well aware of the horrific impact that the war in Iraq has had on the Alaska National Guard…

I have spent the better part of a year trying to get our presidential (and now, vice presidential) candidates to recognize the unprecedented sacrifices that have been asked of our National Guard, but, to date, the response has been inadequate.

According to VFA’s preliminary Alaska findings, “The post-deployment challenges facing Alaska’s Army National Guard are more daunting and widespread than any seen by Veterans for America.”

The Alaska National Guard needs their governor to advocate and fight for their needs — not exploit their deployments for her own political advantage.

We cannot let her shy away from this. We must demand that she answers questions during Thursday’s Vice Presidential Debate — and accepts responsibility — for the conditions on the ground in Alaska. For any who might say that what’s happening in Alaska is part of a larger Army problem (or any other excuse), remind them of what the Adjutant General of the Alaska Guard recently told Fox News: “Yes. Governor Palin is in charge, the commander-in-chief for the Alaska National Guard, and she plays the same role that all governors in all 54 states and territories play, running and managing and operating the Guard day to day for the states that they’re responsible for… National Guards are state military forces run by governors, and Sarah Palin does it great.”

Have a look at the report. Is this a governor who “does it great”?

The plight of Alaska’s National Guard was not brought up in Thursday’s Vice Presidential debate, as Mr. Muller urged, but Gov. Palin must still be held publicly accountable. There is a bridge to nowhere in Alaska after all — and Gov. Palin is content to lead Alaska’s National Guard right to the edge of it.

Tell voters why you are supporting Sen. Obama.