SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (483201)5/25/2009 11:50:21 AM
From: bentway1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1577019
 
Powell Jousts With Cheney on Path of Republican Party

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — Colin L. Powell challenged Dick Cheney on the legacy of the Bush administration and the future of the Republican Party on Sunday, declaring that Republicans should not bow to “diktats that come from the right wing.”

The remarks by Mr. Powell, a former secretary of state, amounted to a public rebuttal of Mr. Cheney, the former vice president, and Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio commentator, who have questioned Mr. Powell’s Republican credentials and suggested that he should leave the party.

“Rush will not get his wish,” Mr. Powell said Sunday on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “And Mr. Cheney was misinformed. I am still a Republican.”

Mr. Powell’s appearance underlined an extraordinary public struggle among Republicans over the future of the party and the legacy of the Bush administration, particularly on national security. Mr. Powell broke with Mr. Cheney on the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, saying that he agreed with President Obama that it should be closed and that Mr. Cheney disagreed as much with his former boss as with Mr. Obama.

“Mr. Cheney is not only disagreeing with President Obama’s policy,” Mr. Powell said. “He’s disagreeing with President Bush’s policy. President Bush stated repeatedly to international audiences and to the country that he wanted to close Guantánamo. The problem he had was he couldn’t get all the pieces together.”

Mr. Powell said Guantánamo prisoners could be safely housed in United States prisons, undercutting the main theme Congressional Republicans have been wielding against the president.

Still, Mr. Powell faulted Mr. Obama for failing to produce a detailed plan to close the prison and for giving his opponents time to mobilize on the issue.

In another indication of Republican discord, Tom Ridge, who was a secretary of homeland security for Mr. Bush, said on CNN that he disagreed with Mr. Cheney that the nation was less safe because of Mr. Obama’s national security policies. He, too, supports the closing of Guantánamo. The comments from Mr. Powell and Mr. Ridge come as Republican Congressional leaders are pushing to capitalize on concerns about national security and housing terrorism detainees from Guantánamo in local prisons.

But Karl Rove, who was Mr. Bush’s senior political adviser, saluted Mr. Cheney for leading the fight in challenging Mr. Obama, saying he was doing what other Republicans were not. “The vice president feels very strongly that the administration has mischaracterized and distorted the Bush administration’s record,” he said in an interview.

“I applaud Cheney,” he said. “No one else was stepping forward.”

Liz Cheney, a Republican strategist and Mr. Cheney’s daughter, said, “This isn’t complicated.”

“Conservatism is conservatism,” Ms. Cheney said. “Republicans have led the nation to greatness when they’ve been true to fundamental principles, such as a strong national defense, limited government and low taxes. None of those are things President Obama believes in.”

Mr. Powell infuriated many in his party last fall when he endorsed Mr. Obama for president. His appearance on “Face the Nation” comes two weeks after Mr. Cheney, appearing on the same program, said he believed that Mr. Powell “had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican.”

On Sunday, Mr. Powell called for an “after-action review” by Republicans of why the party had fared so poorly in the November elections, and what the party needed to do going forward. “After a battle or after a training exercise, you bring all of the leaders in,” he said. “And you say, ‘What’s going right? What’s going wrong? What did we do right or wrong? And how do we move forward?’ ”

He made clear that he thought a major threat to the party were suggestions by Republicans like Mr. Cheney and Mr. Limbaugh that there was no room for Republicans like Mr. Powell. “What the concern about me is, ‘Well, is he too moderate?’ ” Mr. Powell said. “I have always felt that the Republican Party should be more inclusive than it generally has been over the years.”

The recent exchanges underscored the turmoil in the party as it tries to assess the losses last year and judge the extent to which it needs to disassociate itself with the policies of Mr. Bush. Mr. Powell’s call for expanding the party was embraced by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and a leading conservative in the party, who said Republicans would be doomed to minority status if they adopted a small-tent view.

“I don’t think anybody has the authority to read anybody out of a free party,” Mr. Gingrich said in an interview. “Having started my career in Georgia when there were no Republicans and we were eager to show up, and having been in the House for 15 years as a member of the minority, I’ll tell you if we didn’t have moderates, we would never have become a majority party. You can’t be a national party without internal tension.”

Still, other Republicans said that while they agreed with Mr. Powell’s argument that the road to success was not in pushing people out of the party, there were clear signs of animosity toward him.

“There are a lot of Republicans and conservatives who are frustrated with Colin Powell because of his endorsement of President Obama,” said Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Republican of Minnesota.

Mr. Pawlenty said he agreed with Mr. Powell that the Republican Party could become a majority party only if it was open to people who disagreed on some issues. “If your indictment of the Republican Party is that it’s not mainstream enough,” he said, “and then the party puts forth somebody who is clearly a mainstream Republican — John McCain for president — and then you leap-frog over him to endorse Barack Obama, that seems to be about more than being frustrated with the Republican Party not being mainstream enough.”

And Mr. Rove said that while he thought Mr. Powell’s views were welcome in the party — “If you want to describe a vision for the Republican Party, you are welcome to do that” — he suggested that Mr. Powell, a former Army general who served as secretary of state under Mr. Bush from 2001 to 2005 and who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the first President Bush, had not gone the next step in finding candidates and helping to put the party back into power.

“With that vision, you’ve got to go out and work for it,” Mr. Rove said. “It’s not enough to opine from the side of the field.”

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company



To: longnshort who wrote (483201)5/25/2009 1:48:51 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577019
 
QUITE A FEW GITMO ENDORSEMENTS....

Colin Powell offered some subtle criticism yesterday of President Obama's handling of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, arguing the White House should have articulated a more detailed plan for the detainees before starting the process. But Powell's general take (pdf) was a rather forceful endorsement of the president's general approach on the issue.

"I felt Guantanamo should be closed for the past six years, and I lobbied and presented reasons to President Bush. And Mr. Cheney is not only disagreeing with President Obama's policy. He's disagreeing with President Bush's policy. President Bush stated repeatedly to international audiences and to the country that he wanted to close Guantanamo. [...]

"Guantanamo has caused us a great deal of trouble throughout the world. And Mr. Cheney the other day said, 'Well, we're doing it to satisfy European intellectuals' or something like that. No. We're doing it to reassure Europeans, Muslims, Arabs, all the people around the world that we are a nation of law. [...]

"This business about making the country less safe by bringing these people to our prison system, we have got two million people in jail in America. The highest incarceration rate in the world. And they all had lawyers. They had all had access to the writ of habeas corpus and they're all in jail. And I don't know, Bob, if you've ever seen some of these prison reality shows on television where they show you what a super lock-up is. I'm not terribly about worried one of these guys going to a super lock-up."

Hearing this, it occurred to me that the list of leading Republican officials -- or officials appointed by a Republican president -- who support shutting down the Gitmo facility includes quite a few names. Bush's Secretary of State (Powell), Bush's Defense Secretary (Robert Gates), Bush's chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Mullen), even Bush himself, all believe the nation's security interests would be well served by shutting down the detention facility.

Now, that doesn't necessarily translate into merit. It's a lazy argument to say, "Group A believes this is a good policy, therefore the policy is worthwhile." Obviously, Powell, Gates, Mullen, et al can be wrong about this.

I mention it, though, because the Republican Party has decided that this is the killer issue upon which the GOP can build a comeback. They decided quite some time ago -- even before last year's election -- that public fear and confusion were ripe for exploitation, and the party that couldn't make headway on anything of substance could turn Gitmo into demagogic gold.

It creates an odd dynamic. The one issue Republicans believe is the president's Achilles' heel is the same issue in which Obama enjoys the support of Colin Powell, Bush's Defense Secretary, and the Bush-appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Collectively, they're up against Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and craven members of Congress.

In terms of public credibility, it's a match-up that seems to favor the White House -- or at least it would, if more congressional Dems stopped being so cowardly about this.

washingtonmonthly.com