On Sunday, former Secretary of State under George Bush, and purported Conservative visited with Christiane Amanpour on the Sunday news show This Week. Powell made some interesting comments about America’s founding fathers and compromise.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Paul Bonicelli to discuss Dick Cheney’s new book, In My Time, how it portrays other members of George W. Bush’s administration and what it means for Cheney’s legacy.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

In My Time on Amazon
Condoleezza Rice: Cheney attacked ‘my integrity’
Powell says Cheney taking ‘cheap shots’ in book
Dick Cheney book reveals George W. Bush administration’s internal battles
Lightning Rod
Dick Cheney’s book is different and it’s because he’s the author
Paul Bonicelli’s work at Foreign Policy Magazine
Paul Bonicelli at Regent University

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Conservatives need to be wary of the notion that General David Petraeus – or, for that matter, any other general or admiral – is necessarily the answer to their fervent prayers for victory in 2012.  GEN Petraeus is a true hero, an awesome leader and a great American whom every citizen owes a debt of gratitude.  But politically, he presents an ideological blank slate upon which many on the right are merely projecting their hopes and aspirations.  For several reasons, GEN Petraeus is likely to disappoint them.

The most obvious reason is that GEN Petraeus himself has repeatedly and unequivocally rejected the idea of ever running for public office.  Cynical observers routinely discount such disclaimers, but there are several reasons to believe that he really means it.  As the commander of CENTCOM, responsible for both Iraq and Afghanistan, GEN Petraeus has a full plate and a mission he has not yet completed.  He is committed to the mission, and has worked for its success for nearly a decade (I have not worked for GEN Petraeus personally, but I have close friends who have worked directly for him – to the point of receiving emails from him at home at odd hours after their return to civilian life – and they uniformly deeply respect him).  He was also diagnosed with prostate cancer.  But the most powerful evidence against a possible run is that he has said he would not run.  Unlike many in the political arena, his word and a dollar are together worth more than 100 cents.

But assuming he could be enticed to run – say, if he was absolutely convinced that the good of the nation depended upon it – what then?  His storied military career and his ability to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq via “the Surge” have fueled speculationabout whether he can follow in Eisenhower’s footsteps from the command post to the White House.  Like Ike, GEN Petraeus would probably be most comfortable as a Republican.  He was registered in the GOP before 2002, when he stopped voting.  The American Enterprise Institute recently honored him.  And he doesn’t seem like he would have much use for defeatists and pacifists, social parasites or the unbelievably corrupt, so he couldn’t be a Democrat.

(more…)

For more than a year after Barack Obama became president, there was no word from Colin Powell about a man he described as having “great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature.”  Today, Powell broke his silence.  Did he have the courage to admit his mistake, his blunder, his betrayal?

No.  Speaking on Face the Nation, Powell said he did not regret endorsing Obama, though the former Republican appointee could not bring himself to say much of anything positive about him.  He claimed, absurdly, that the nation is more financially secure since The One took office and that “slowly but surely we are starting to see the kind of improvements the American people wanted and voted for him for.”  Lackadaisical leadership, cronyism and corruption, massive unemployment, soaring deficits, weakness overseas – does General Powell really believe that these are the changes the American people wanted?

(more…)

Remember in 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell dramatically held up the vial of anthrax before the United Nations Security Council and exclaimed, “there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more?”

It was that argument – that Saddam Hussein was attempting to increase his capability for Weapons of Mass Destruction – on which the Bush Administration hung its credibility and sought to build the public support for an invasion of Iraq in 2003.

As American forces swept across Iraq in an impressive fashion, the cold hard evidence of Powell’s assertions was difficult to find.  And in the following years, the Bush administration’s credibility for its reason to go to war suffered.

(more…)