Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Obama should choose Colin Powell to head up Gitmo Project.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:34 AM
Original message
President Obama should choose Colin Powell to head up Gitmo Project.
Since General Powell has said that he has spoken with the President about the subject. And since he has been for closing Gitmo for quite a few years, is there a better person the President could choose to help get this by the Democrats and the balking Republicans in the Senate? It would be very tough for some Republicans to go against the advice of General Powell. This would be a checkmate for Obama if he chose to make it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. How about Secretary of State?
We already have Bush's man running the Pentagon, so why not bring the whole crew back? They do have the experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. But isn't Hillary the SoS??
Gitmo is a special problem that needs special handling. The politics involved, instigated by the Repubs, has to be addressed. I'm saying this would be a political chess move to help Obama defeat the Repubs because enough of them would side with General Powell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. I think that was supposed to be snark directed at you.
The idea in the subtext, apparently, is that Obama is somehow "Bush Lite" because he's not moving fast enough or leaning far enough to the left.

I dunno about Powell, though. A lot of Republicans find him too moderate for their wingish tastes, and question his bona fides. He's not a youngster (he's McCain vintage), and I don't really think it's Obama's 'job' to rescue Powell's tattered reputation.

Powell made a decision when he got out of the military to go with the GOP. He "danced with the ones what brung him," in essence (he began his high-flying "close to the throne" life in the Nixon White House). He would have been better off dumping his dance date and going with the other team--they're a bit more loyal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. No need for you to over-interpret.
For now it's not Obama's stupid idea of appointing a war criminal (who played one of the three or four key roles in launching the aggressive war on Iraq), so I'm hardly counting it against Obama that some poster proposes it.

And Obama's not Bush lite. So far he's just another president a la Clinton, in the pocket of the banks and the war machine, living in fear of the spook complex. I'm seeing some things better than Bush or Clinton, so there's always Hope (tm).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. I don't know if he would do it - but I would be in favor of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. I don't want people who lied to start a war anywhere near government....
No matter how convenient it would be as a matter of political gamesmanship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmahaBlueDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. I'd go with Chuck Hagel
Former Senator Hagel isn't as widely villified by the right, yet he was one of the few anti-war Republicans during the Bush years. He speaks the language of GOP Senators, having been one himself. He could be instrumental in getting Lindsay Graham & McCain to come around.

Despite the fears of Kansans that the Terror will be visited upon them if Gitmo detainees are placed in Leavenworth, there are many places we can keep detainees that minimize any risk to anyone. Air Force bases in Alaska, North of the Brooks range; Pearl Harbor; or the Aleutians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. Great idea. He can talk with the detainees and tell them how he helped
detail their individualized torture programs.


At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Powell said through an assistant there were "hundreds of meetings" on a wide variety of topics and that he was "not at liberty to discuss private meetings."


video

transcript

"We had no meetings on torture. It’s constantly said that the meetings—I had an issue with this—we had meetings on what torture to administer. What I recall, the meetings I was in—I was not in all of the meetings and I was not an author of many of the memos that have been written (and some have come out, some have not come out). The only meetings I recall were where we talked about what is it we can do with respect to trying to get information from individuals who were in our custody."


Powell is hiding behind semantics (Bush's/Memos definition of torture)...he claims - "no meetings on torture" and then goes on to say - "The only meetings I recall were where we talked about what is it we can do with respect to trying to get information from individuals who were in our custody"

And how do you get information from people in custody? You interrogate them..and what was Bush's interrogation policy? Torture (so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques")....Powell saying "no meetings on torture" is like Bush saying "We don't torture"...of course you didn't have meetings on torture...you just talked about using enhanced interrogation techniques on people.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC