Posted on 05/25/2009 10:59:06 AM PDT by Starman417
Colin Powell is a Republican. It doesn't bother me as much as it grates on the nerves of a number of movement activists who feel a sense of betrayal.
I certainly don't want Republicans like Powell as a leader of the GOP since moderates of his caliber do not embody the best of conservative ideology. But I do believe in not shrinking the party by purging it of RINO/CINO "infiltrators".
The real story, however, is not the media sensationalism that wishes to egg on the Powell-Cheney-Rush bickering and GOP uncivil war. NewsBusters points out the real scoop from Powell's Face the Nation interview isn't about "A kinder, gentler, more inclusive party", but about Powell's defense of Bush era decisions:
Here are some of the early headlines:* Powell Still a Republican, Despite Party Differences -- New York Times * Powell to Republicans: Listen to moderates, too -- Associated Press * Powell Takes on Cheney, Limbaugh in Battle for Republican Party -- Bloomberg
Unfortunately, in their fascination with conflict, the press could miss the most interesting part of this interview when Powell defended what George W. Bush did after the 9/11 attacks (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, relevant section at 12:20):
COLIN POWELL: And one point I have to make. It really comes out of the things that have been written lately. That is in the first year after 9/11, we did everything we could to stop the possibility of another 9/11. We put in place the PATRIOT Act. We used enhanced interrogation techniques. I shut down for the most part the visa system until we could fix it. But after about a year-and-a-half when it looked like things were relatively secure and we were doing a better job, then we started to relax the visa system once we fixed it because we can't keep moving in that direction with putting people in jail forever without resolving their cases. We're not letting people come to our country.So it was natural to start shifting back to our more normal ways of doing business and dealing with the rest of the world after we had achieved a level of security.
We are more secure. I mean, my Republican friends sort of get mad when I say we need government. People want effective, responsible government. Republicans have not cut much government even though talk about limited government and cutting government. We created the Department of Homeland Security. Needed. We created the Transportation Security Agency that guards our terminals where people go in and out. Needed. We created a director of national intelligence. Needed. The American people want to see a FEMA that takes care of us in hurricanes and tornadoes. The American people want to see federal regulators making sure we never get into the kind of financial problem we had last year. And we're working our way out of it.
So there is a need for government. What the American people want not just slogans, limited government. They want effective government. Government that works and just as much as we need. But if we need it, let's have it.
BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: All right. Let me ask you this. The former vice president said he had no regrets about the methods that were used including waterboarding. He actually authorized it. He says they may have saved thousands of lives. I want to ask you two questions. Do you agree with that? That these techniques were effective?
And number two, when did you know about this business, general?
POWELL: When we started to examine these techniques I was in some meetings where they were discussed.
POWELL: I was not privy to the memos that were being written or the legal opinions that were being written.
I think it was unfortunate but we had a system that kept that in a very compartmented manner. And so I was apart that these enhanced interrogation techniques were being considered. And they were judged not to be torture at the time.
And when you were facing the possibility of a 9/11, you had to give some -- some flexibility to the CIA. But it was under the Bush administration that they stopped using these techniques back in 19 -- in 2003.
So obviously the CIA did not feel that we had anybody else in our custody that would need to have these techniques used. And as a result...
SCHIEFFER: Do you think they were effective?
POWELL: ... they haven't been used -- I have no idea. I hear that they were. I hear that they weren't. You see people from the FBI who come out and say, we got all of that information before any of that was done. I cannot answer that question.
And the problem is, I don't know what I don't know.
SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this. Jan Crawford Greenburg of ABC News reported last year that the top people in the administration, you, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser, were actually brought in to meetings in the White House where these things were outlined. But you're saying you don't know -- at those meetings you're saying that nothing was (INAUDIBLE)?
POWELL: They were outlined. We were aware that these techniques were being discussed. And we were aware that legal opinions were being given that said they met the standard of the law.
But over time, now that we look at it, it's easy now in the cold light of day to look back and say, you shouldn't have done any of that. But as Mr. Cheney has said very, very often, as has President Bush and all of us, if we had another attack like 9/11, say on 9/11 a year later, nobody would have forgiven us for not doing everything we could.
And the CIA thought we needed those kinds of techniques but now we see that these are not appropriate.
When it is pointed out to critics that they have removed themselves emotionally from the context of the times (9/11 still fresh in the minds of Americans through the rest of 2001 and into 2002) in judging the decisions made by the Bush Administration, a common rejoinder I hear is that now that they are distanced by history, they have a clearer, rational head and we can now clearly see in 20/20 hindsight, wrongful decisions made in "the heat" of the years 2001-2002.
(Excerpt) Read more at Flopping Aces ...
Yeah, okay, agreed, but he endorsed the enemy. He endorsed Zero. He actively endorsed the enemy.
I don’t care that he’s right on this point. Where does he get off endorsing the enemy and not paying a price for it?
He can stay in the party if he wants to but he has to do penance, has to admit he was wrong to endorse the enemy.
When he admits he was wrong to endorse the enemy, then I’m fine with him remaining a Republican.
Until then, he’s persona non grata, no matter how much he may defend Bush administration in the first year after 9/11.
As the article notes, the media are ignoring that anyway. But that endorsed the enemy, the media were all over that one. He needs to come clean publicly, in a big way, such that the media can’t ignore: I wuz wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong when I endorsed this POS.
If the Republican “leaders” weren’t so backward and afraid of bold action, they would endorse and make the FairTax a major goal. The FairTax legislation being held up in Congress calls for repeal of the federal income tax and the demise of the IRS, replacing revenue with a relatively simple national retail sales tax collected by the States. The tax would be on services and new goods, not used goods. The FairTax plan provides for “prebates” to neutralize the effect of the sales taxes on those with low income. It taxes consumption instead of production. The whole federal income tax mess, with some 60,000 pages of regulations, instructions and forms would be history. There would be no payroll withholding tax, no Social Security tax and no Medicare tax deducted from your pay. The FairTax system would result in unprecedented economic growth and give the United States a huge competitive advantage to attract capital. See more at www.fairtax.org
What a great start! Now there are four of us soon to be millions.
I think you have jumped to a conclusion. I said “A” major goal, not “THE”.
Don’t you think Americans will get excited about the idea of eliminating the federal income tax system, if it were properly communicated to them? Don’t you think even liberals will have to listen to millions of voters eager to dump the federal income tax system? The FairTax plan has been very well thought out by experts. If you want to support it, go to www.fairtax.org then write to your congressmorons. There is legislation in both the House and Senate, but it will take more public pressure to get it moving.
I’m agreeing on everything you are saying but America will not listen to us as we are right now. As far as spending, lying, Reps sent to jail or kicked out of office, we are not better than Democrats. Frankly polls show that the people don’t trust either party. I sure in hell don’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.