Posted on 08/04/2003 1:05:11 PM PDT by FairOpinion
No Basis for Washington Post Story
PRESS RELEASE FROM STATE: Regarding the story in today's Washington Post about Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage, there was no conversation between the Deputy Secretary and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice concerning any plans for "stepping down." There is no basis for the story. As Secretary Powell has always said, he and Deputy Secretary Armitage serve at the pleasure of the President, and will continue to do so.
###
"This is gossip and rumor," said State Department spokesman Philip Reeker when asked about The Washington Post story. "The story purports to describe a conversation that took place. That conversation never took place."
###
WHITE HOUSE: Scott McClellan just announced that Secy Powell and Deputy Secy Armitage will be arriving at the Crawford Ranch tomorrow evening for dinner with the President. The two will overnight in Crawford and then will meet again with the President on Wednesday and have lunch before heading back to DC...
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
05 August 2003
Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, has made clear his intention not to serve a second term if President George Bush is re-elected.
The report in The Washington Post yesterday immediately triggered feverish speculation as to who would replace General Powell as America's most senior diplomat.
Having endured numerous battles with hawks in the administration, General Powell, 66, has reportedly decided to stand down in January 2005. His deputy, Richard Armitage, is also said to have made clear he intends to follow his boss by quitting the administration.
If true, General Powell's decision would not be a huge surprise to Washington insiders. There have been previous reports that he only ever intended to serve one term. But the timing of the report - leaving him with another 17 months to serve - has opened up a huge debate over who would replace him and the nature of a second Bush administration without him.
"I think people had assumed [he would not serve a second term]," said David Corn, political editor of The Nation magazine. "From his perspective, what is in it for him? He will have done the job for four years, he has disagreed with some of the policy - though not enough to quit. Why would he stick it out? He would not get any more out of it. He is not going to get any more job satisfaction or status."
The retired general became America's first black secretary of state when he agreed to join the Bush administration in January 2001, having previously served as deputy national security adviser and national security adviser for Ronald Reagan and the current President's father. He was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bill Clinton.
But the naturally easy-going General Powell's enthusiasm to serve has undoubtedly been tempered by the sometimes ferocious battles he has endured with more hawkish elements in the administration, most notably the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Earlier this year, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, relations between the two men reached a low point and their staffs were engaged in a wide-ranging battle of leak and counter-leak designed to hurt the other.
In this environment it is understandable that General Powell might feel content to keep the promise he reportedly made to his wife, Alma, not to serve a second term. It is widely held that he only agreed not to make a run for the presidency himself, in 1996 and 2000, because he had promised his wife not to. Yesterday, the State Department denied the Post's report that General Powell had decided against a second term. It also dismissed the newspaper's claim that his deputy, Mr Armitage, had passed on the news to the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in a recent conversation, telling her that they would both step down on 21 January 2005, the day after the next presidential inauguration.
Philip Reeker, a State Department spokesman, said: "This is gossip and rumour. There was no conversation between [Mr Armitage] and Ms Rice concerning any plans to step down. There is no basis for the story."
Michael Anton, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said: "The conversation didn't happen."
But Washington was abuzz yesterday with speculation over a possible successor to General Powell, with most attention focused on Ms Rice and Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary. Of the two, Ms Rice's close personal relationship with President Bush is seen to give her a slight advantage, though in recent weeks she has suffered criticism for her role in controversy surrounding the administration's use of false evidence as it sought to make the case for war against Iraq.
President Bush recently named Ms Rice as his personal representative on efforts to secure a Middle East peace settlement - a move that some State Department officials viewed as an audition for secretary of state - and described her as "an honest, fabulous person, and America is lucky to have her service".
What seems clear is that without General Powell and his instinct to seek consensus with other countries and to build coalitions, a second Bush administration would undergo a noticeable shift in stance and policy.
With Ms Rice or Mr Wolfowitz assuming the job, the hawks would dominate foreign policy. This would be exacerbated by the likely departure of many senior officials appointed by General Powell within the State Department.
He has always declined to respond to speculation about how long he plans to stay in the job but he has made clear that he has many interests beyond government service, specifically a commitment to improving education opportunities for black Americans. "I serve at the pleasure of the President," he said last month. "That's the only answer I've ever given to that question, no matter what form it comes in."
Yes, I'm quite certain of my facts, as I remember feeling sick to my stomach when I read or heard about it back in early 2001. I remember thinking that it didn't bode well and I also recall hoping that Bush would lean on him to replace the Clintonista leftovers with appropriate people, as they would be making major policy decisions.
I also did not see the quote about Hamas. Do you have a link, or is this another New York Times story that the media picked up?
It was splashed all over the media in late July. I posted a link above, but feel free to go to http://news.google.com/news?q=powell+hamas+%22social+wing%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&sa=G&edition=us&scoring=d and see the 163 cites for yourself if you think I'm making it all up.
Well, according to the Washington Times:
U.S. reverses its position on Hamas
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Bush administration, in a gesture to visiting Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, softened its stance on the militant group Hamas yesterday, saying it could survive if it transformed into a purely political organization.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell — who said last month that "It is no longer possible to separate one part of Hamas from another part of Hamas" and called Hamas an "enemy of peace" — told reporters in Washington yesterday:
"If an organization that has a terrorist component to it, a terrorist wing to it, totally abandons that, gives it up, and there is no question in anyone's mind that is part of its past, then that is a different organization."
The secretary's latest remarks came as Mr. Abbas visited lawmakers on Capitol Hill and met separately with American Jewish leaders prior to a meeting with President Bush at the White House today.
Mr. Powell condemned Hamas for killing "innocent people" and for killing Palestinian hopes "for a state of their own."
However, he praised the extremist group's "social wing" for doing "things for people in need."
Apart from its armed wing, which conducts armed attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, Hamas operates an extensive network of medical and other social services in the Palestinian territories.
Last month, during a trip to the Middle East to promote the U.S.-backed "road map" for peace, Mr. Powell dismissed an idea — proposed by some in the Palestinian Authority — that Hamas and Islamic Jihad be allowed to become political parties if they got rid of their military wings.
"Anyone participating in public life ... would be individuals and organizations that are firmly committed to democracy, to the rule of law, and not to terrorism. Right now, Hamas is clinging to terror and celebrates the terrorist attacks we are seeing," Mr. Powell said on June 20.
"And it is no longer possible to separate one part of Hamas from another part of Hamas," he said.
A senior administration official said yesterday that there had been no shift in administration policy. But the official said that terrorists have been known to become "peaceful forces."
Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which are responsible for numerous suicide attacks on Israeli civilians, on June 29 agreed to a temporary cease-fire to allow for the implementation of the road map.
Mr. Abbas, who faces possible ouster if he returns from the United States without winning significant concessions from Israel and a concrete offer of support from Mr. Bush, told a group of Jewish community leaders yesterday he would be asking the U.S. administration for increased funds to compete with Hamas' social work.
"What Secretary Powell said requires a leap of faith," Judy Yudof, president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, said afterward.
"I think we would all welcome Hamas abandoning terrorism as a part of their platform," she said, but added: "I need to be convinced beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt."
Michael Bohnen, chairman of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said of Mr. Abbas:
"He's hoping to get additional funding from the United States so he can compete with the institutions of Hamas to basically help him achieve the support of the Palestinian people."
Mr. Bohnen, who attended the 75-minute meeting with Mr. Abbas, said the Palestinian leader had outlined four areas of concern regarding progress on the road map: the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails; ongoing Israeli settlement activity; the construction of a fence separating Israel from Palestinian areas; and Israeli checkpoints.
"[Mr. Abbas] said those issues could become weapons in the hands of extremists," Mr. Bohnen said.
In a high-stakes push to keep the teetering Mideast road map to peace alive, Mr. Abbas told congressional leaders Mr. Bush's efforts could fail if more pressure is not applied on Israel.
A Palestinian official close to Mr. Abbas said he had told congressional leaders in a closed session that "if Congress continues blindly to support Israel without considering Palestinian concerns, then President Bush's vision will not be attainable."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican, said he would help to secure more U.S. assistance for the Palestinians.
Israel insists that Mr. Abbas confront and disarm the terrorist groups.
Pressure has been mounting for Mr. Abbas to gain ground with the Bush administration.
Militant Palestinian groups are crowding daily onto the streets to demand the release of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli jails and have threatened to abandon a June 29 truce if their demands are not met.
Other key demands include a halt on Israeli settlements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip and an end to the construction of the security fence — described by Mr. Abbas as a "Berlin Wall" — separating Israel from Palestinian areas.
If Mr. Abbas "is unable to achieve any progress on these ... points, we are sure that he will face difficulties on the Palestinian street and inside the [legislature]," warned Information Minister Nabil Amr.
The United States is keen on helping Mr. Abbas build up his credibility with the Palestinians, having supported his appointment in April in a bid to move away from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
All eyes will be on Mr. Bush as he sits down to break the deadlock between Mr. Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who arrives at the White House on Monday.
"Each of the prime ministers is coming to him and is looking to him to direct the next step," said Mrs. Yudof. "President Bush is in a unique position to be a friend to Israel and to the Palestinians and broker this peace."
As we learned in the Jayson Blair case (only the latest in a list of such), there doesn't even have to be a real, live source. Big media seldom lets a little fiction get in the way of making a buck.
Elaborating later at a news conference, Powell said Hamas "has a social wing that does good things." He said Hamas would be a different organization if it gave up its weapons and abandoned terrorism.
As for what he ment by good things, first I would like to hear what exactly he meant by his comment
I am not .. IMO .. I hope they rot in hell
I just know from past history that Powell's comments are often taken out of context by reporters
Elaborating later at a news conference, Powell said Hamas "has a social wing that does good things." He said Hamas would be a different organization if it gave up its weapons and abandoned terrorism.
As for what he ment by good things, first I would like to hear what exactly he meant by his comment
Of *course* hamas would be a different group without their weapons and violence -- those little details are what define them!
So, by the same putative logic, if we can just convince al qaeda to give up weapons and abandon violence, they'd be a viable and legitimate political force in Afghanistan and elsewhere in that region?
I *have* been carefully watching Neville Powell ever since he adamantly refused to can the Clinton appointees -- the ones he was entitled and expected to can -- and I don't just trust him.
He was *very* much against the first Gulf War, and his ties to the Saudi royal family are just a little too uncomfortably close for me.
My hunch is that Bush is a little too dazzled by his resume and wouldn't let anyone else get away with this kind of crap. I could be wrong, but I'm an excellent judge of people and can quickly (and accurately) size up just about anyone.
I would only add~~"much sooner rather than later".
As far as Powell, the quotes I am finding refer to the social wing of Hamas doing some good things, which I am sure they do, but then he ALSO says that if Hamas wants to be included, they must disband the terrorism and get rid of weapons (which they won't, ergo, they are not in).
If you can't help me .. fine .. I will see what I can find out on my own
No, I was referring to mainstream media articles. I don't read Larry Klayman. Sorry. And Powell wasn't just talking about the time immediately after the inauguration, but permanently. He thought these people have a lot to offer in terms of policy and advice. That's when I started to be suspicious of him. Look, I'm a former reporter and I *know* how to read and evaluate the news and the various sources. I know the difference between a hyperventilating Larry Klayman press release and a news article in a mainstream publication.
As far as Powell, the quotes I am finding refer to the social wing of Hamas doing some good things, which I am sure they do, but then he ALSO says that if Hamas wants to be included, they must disband the terrorism and get rid of weapons (which they won't, ergo, they are not in).
As I just explained above, hamas has a "social wing" to provide cover for their real purpose -- slaughtering Jews. Al qaeda also has a "social wing" that does "some good things," so if we can convince them to knock off the terrorism, you'll be OK with them?
Hamas is TAINTED because they are defined by the terrorism. It's not just a sideline activity for them, but what their main purpose is. Just like al qaeda. To even talk about them dropping the terrorism and becoming legitimate by doing some more "good stuff" is a sick, sick joke.
He is a military man who has seen battle .. I am not surprised that he didn't want to go to war.
I also recall during that time, the fear was that 50 thousand + troops could be killed. Name me one General who likes that thought.
As for why Bush picked him ... I don't think Bush was dazzled by his resume .. I think President Bush valued his opinion and that is why he picked Powell.
It is a know fact that President hasn't surrounded himself with yes men .. which is fine by me. I want our President to hear both sides of the argument so that he can make a sound judgement on what should be done.
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.
