Politico looks at how the tide has turned for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. "Although Obama never lost confidence in one of his earliest Cabinet picks, a turning point for Geithner came during a seven-hour marathon meeting at the White House on March 15. The president's top aides could see that he had thought through all the options and had thoughtful, authoritative answers to all their questions. The scathing Feb. 10 reviews were partly a result of an exhausted, overextended staff. But Geithner has had to work through a presidency's worth of problems in just a few months." 
 
The Hill takes a look at the possibility of Obama making "recess appointments," which would allow "him to install a nominee who would otherwise need Senate confirmation."

"U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in the past one of China's sharpest critics, Tuesday promoted common ground with China in the fight to combat global warming," the Wall Street Journal reports. "'I think this climate crisis is game changing for the U.S.-China relationship. It is an opportunity we cannot miss,' Ms. Pelosi told the U.S.-China Clean Energy Forum, which brings together experts and businesses from both sides to come up with recommendations on climate-change policy." 

"After a politically messy few weeks that forced them to play defense, Democratic leaders will return to work next week hoping to shift attention back on their top priorities -- namely, a universal health care package and a climate change overhaul," Roll Call writes. "Congress enters a two-month legislative sprint starting June 1. But a slew of intraparty squabbles and ongoing controversies over torture and terror threaten to bog down the meat of the Democrats' summer agenda." 
 
"The congressional drive to bring tobacco under Food & Drug Administration control -- given new life in the Senate last week --  is poised to approach the finish line in the Senate in June, but not without a bipartisan fight from North Carolina's two senators," The Hill reports. 
 
Immigration reform, meanwhile, could be on the agenda for the fall.

CNN: "As Colin Powell fires back against Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh in the latest skirmish in the battle over the future of the Republican Party, a new national poll indicates that Americans have a much more favorable opinion of Powell than Cheney or Limbaugh. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Monday, suggests that 70 percent have a favorable opinion of Powell, who was Secretary of State during President George W. Bush's first term, and who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Persian Gulf War."

"Only 30 percent of those polled have a favorable view of Limbaugh, the popular conservative radio talk show host, with 53 percent saying they hold an unfavorable opinion. In poll numbers released Thursday, 37 percent say they have a favorable opinion of Dick Cheney." 

"Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) is heading to Iowa on June 1 to deliver a keynote political address, tour a biotechnology firm and participate in a meet-and-greet at a local ice cream parlor," Roll Call writes. "Feel free to draw your own conclusions." 
 
"In discussing the future of the Republican Party on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) sounded almost like a candidate for president building a platform for the 2012 election," Roll Call writes. "But Gingrich said he would not even decide on a 2012 White House bid until 2011."

OKLAHOMA: Former Rep. J.C. Watts won't run for Oklahoma governor. "With Watts out of the race, Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) is considered the front-runner against state Sen. Randy Brogdon, the only other announced GOP candidate" in the open governor's race.
 
PENNSYLVANIA: Stu Rothenberg, writing in Roll Call, throws some cold water on claims that Pat Toomey won in a Democratic-leaning district and says flatly that "Toomey is not the front-runner in that race" -- despite a former Toomey chief of staff making the claim.

First Read will be on vacation this long Memorial Day weekend, although we will update the site if news warrants. Otherwise, we'll see you Tuesday morning.

Have a happy and safe Memorial Day weekend.

THE WEEK AHEAD: Supreme Court choice, Viva Las Vegas, Durbin vs. Gingrich on Meet the Press, and Par-tay!

 

 

From NBC's Mark Murray
Over the last several weeks, we've paid attention to some of the latest moves and statements by Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mark Sanford, and Bobby Jindal. But not so much on Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- outside of that never-ending recount in his state.

But conservatives are praising what appears to be Pawlenty's victory in his budget standoff with the Dem-controlled Minnesota legislature. Opines Kimberley Strassel in today's Wall Street Journal: "If Republicans are looking to get back their conservative groove, they could do worse than study Minnesota's budget brawl. Mr. Pawlenty deftly (and amusingly) outmaneuvered his Democratic opposition, not only saving his state from huge tax increases but clearing the way to cut government spending. Call it a refreshing break from the financial-crisis norm."

Next up for Pawlenty, though: that contentious Minnesota recount.

From NBC's Mark Murray
At some point, are Republicans going to start demanding that RNC Chairman Michael Steele no longer guest-host Bill Bennett's radio's show?

Subbing for Bennett again, Steele seemed to suggest that Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination and the presidential contest because he's black -- and because the media didn't vet him due to the color of his skin.

According to the folks at the liberal-leaning Think Progress blog, Steele said this:

"The problem that we have with this president is we don't know him. He was not vetted, folks... He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. 'Oh gee, wouldn't it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn't it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We can continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky to be alive in an America with a black president.' Okay that's wonderful, great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe?"

He then said Republicans made a mistake by not seizing on Obama's ties to the controversial Jeremiah Wright. "And that's why I keep going to back the point -- the missed opportunity was dissecting and understanding Rev. Wright," Steele said.

From NBC's Mark Murray

Liberty University, the school in Virginia founded by the late Jerry Falwell, has expelled the Democratic Party club on the campus, saying that the national Democratic Party's views contradict the university's mission. (Hat tip: Ben Smith.)

Said a school official in an email to the Democratic club, according to the Lynchburg (VA) newspaper: "The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the "LGBT" agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)."

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe held a conference call with reporters in support of the Democrats at Liberty University.

Of course, one must ask: Just how many Dems attend Liberty?

From NBC's Scott Foster
President Obama just congratulated the son of his 2008 Republican rival, John Sidney McCain IV, as the younger McCain today became the fourth McCain to graduate today from the U.S. Naval Academy.

As the two shook hands at the academy's commencement ceremony, the applause from the crowd was slightly more pronounced compared with the other graduating midshipmen.

Father John McCain was in the audience for the graduation.

While Obama didn't refer to the Arizona senator in his graduation speech, earlier today he acknowledged McCain's presence at the graduation during a bill signing ceremony on reforming the Pentagon's weapons acquisition program. "Sen. McCain couldn't be here today, because he's making sure he has a good seat to watch his son graduate from the Naval Academy in a few hours. And that's where I'm headed as soon as I catch my ride over here."

From NBC's Mark Murray
There have been a couple new developments in the Virginia Democratic gubernatorial primary that takes place in less than three weeks. First, as we mentioned earlier, Creigh Deeds -- the least well-known of the three Dems -- picked up the Washington Post's endorsement, a boost for the sole candidate who hails from outside the DC suburbs.

Second, a new DailyKos/Research 2000 poll shows Terry McAuliffe with a sizable lead (36%) over Brian Moran (22%), and Deeds (13%). Caveat: This race is hard to poll, because we just don't know who will turn out.

Now comes a new story about the race in National Journal by Jennifer Skalka, who fixes her spotlight on McAuliffe.

"McAuliffe's supporters say he will bowl over the competition by launching an air and ground war (he has more than 50 field workers) that won't be easily rivaled, and that will be built on a retooled Bill Clintonesque 'It's the economy, stupid' message emphasizing job creation. Detractors predict that McAuliffe's appeal will prove quite limited, that voters will reject him as an interloper."

More: In a turn of the screw not lost on local political observers, McAuliffe is playing down the work for which he is best known -- boosting the Clintons -- to cast himself as an independent voice for Virginians. That is a tricky maneuver, given that McAuliffe is simultaneously trying to cash in on Bill Clinton's star power by appearing with him in Richmond, Roanoke, and the state's Washington suburbs... Obama's landslide in [Virginia's primary] signaled the state's lack of interest in Clinton 2.0. So McAuliffe is refashioning himself in the model of, well, Obama -- a post-partisan figure devoted to job creation and renewable energy. But questions remain: Why does the salesman want to govern? And can he win?"

From NBC's Mark Murray
In the cover story of the latest issue of National Journal, Ron Brownstein brings up a theme we've discussed here: the Republican Party's increasingly geographic isolation to the South -- and the potential political problem that poses for the party.

"Republican strength in the South has both compensated for and masked the extent of the GOP's decline elsewhere. By several key measures, the party is now weaker outside the South than at any time since the Depression; in some ways, it is weaker than ever before," Brownstein writes. "Today the GOP holds a smaller share of non-Southern seats in the House and Senate than at any other point in its history except the apex of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's popularity during the early days of the New Deal. What is perhaps even more dramatic is that Republicans in the past five presidential elections have won a smaller share of the Electoral College votes available outside of the South than in any other five election sequence since the party's formation in 1854."

In the story, former New Hampshire Rep. Charlie Bass (R) says this: "The current crisis of the Republican Party is whether it wants to be a regional party or whether it can try to expand ideologically and appeal to other regions."

So far in the first four months of the Obama presidency -- with Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switching parties, with Jon Huntsman of Utah going to work for Obama (and refused to speak to a Michigan GOP country because he wasn't conservative enough) -- we've gotten an early answer to Bass's question. 

From Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
*** The week that was: In the first four months of the Obama presidency, these past seven days might very well have been the toughest for the young administration and the Democratic Congress. The president received flak from the right and left over his national security positions; he suffered his biggest congressional setback when Congress stripped his desired funding to close the Gitmo prison; and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a rough week in her back-and-forth with the CIA (and tries to turn the page today with her weekly press conference at 10:15 am ET). But things this week were neither as bad for Democrats -- and good for Republicans -- as you might think. Although not in the spotlight, Congress passed two more pieces of legislation, on weapons acquisition reform and on credit cards, which President Obama signs into law today. (By the way, this is the umpteenth time the White House has broken its five-day review pledge.) Republicans can certainly say a lot of things about the Democrats in Congress and at the White House, but they can't criticize them for being unproductive. This is no do-nothing Congress. In addition, while Republicans obviously are enjoying putting Obama and Pelosi on the defensive, you have to wonder whether highlighting Michael Steele, Dick Cheney, and a resolution equating Democrats as socialists was a positive development for them, at least in the long run.

Video: In dueling speeches delivered Thursday, President Barack Obama defended his plan to close Guantanamo, but former Vice President Dick Cheney made it clear that he viewed things very differently. NBC's Andrea Mitchell, Pete Williams, and David Gregory report.

*** Buying time: As for Obama's speech yesterday, it was uncanny how similar it was to the one on race he gave a year ago in Philadelphia. It took place in a symbolic setting (the Constitution Center in Philly vs. the National Archives in DC); it touched on his own biography ("I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents" -- the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, he said yesterday); and it came at a time when he found himself on the defensive (Jeremiah Wright vs. national security). Unlike his speech on race, however, yesterday's wasn't a homerun, though Obama's singles and doubles still look pretty. Also, as expected, it was short on details about what he plans to do with those Gitmo detainees. Finally, Obama was more defensive than we've seen in a while, and the nuance that he preached just isn't as accepted by partisans on either side of these thorny national security issues. But what the speech did do was buy himself time with Congress and the American public before Gitmo closes in January. And in the meantime, the administration hopes stories like this Washington Post piece sink in: "Thirty-three international terrorists, many with ties to al-Qaeda, reside in a single federal prison in Florence, Colo., with little public notice." What say you, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Harry Reid?

*** Cheney's turn: As for Cheney's speech, the former vice president probably should have taken a few extra minutes to tweak his remarks. For instance, the part that hit Obama for not believing we're at war seemed odd, since the president spent a good chunk of his speech talking about just that -- we're at war. In fact, Obama's war rhetoric was so striking that Jon Stewart found it rather easy to compare Obama's words to, ready for this, former President Bush. As for the rest of Cheney's speech, the play it's getting is probably what the White House was gambling on when it decided to elevate the ex-VP by giving his speech on the same day. Bottom line: Cheney's positions on national security are more popular than Cheney himself, and that may explain the motivation on the White House part to pick Cheney. Another thing: The style contrast between Obama and Cheney was more striking than the issue differences -- Obama's nuance and search for the middle ground, versus Cheney's assuredness and black-and-white rhetoric. And don't miss this from David Brooks: "When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he's not really attacking the Obama administration. He's attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public a lot of the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way."

*** Changing the conversation: Back to Obama's speech, one of his other goals was to get the national security conversation to the point that it goes back to page A4. Indeed, while we're all fixated on the national security fight, check out all the other things Obama has accomplished this week:

-- May 18: Met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Middle East peace
-- May 19: Announced new national fuel efficiency standards
-- May 20: Signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act & the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act;
-- May 22: Signs the defense acquisition and credit card reforms into law. Also today, at 10:00 am ET, Obama gives his third and final commencement address this season -- to the Naval Academy's graduating seniors. As Politico notes, one of those graduating seniors is John McCain's son, Jack, and the whole McCain family will be in attendance.

*** Pure energy: Last night, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the long-awaited cap-and-trade bill. It's amazing the attention a committee passage for a bill got yesterday. The fact that some environmental groups (like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen) are against the legislation may be music to the White House's ears; when they get attacked from the left, it gives them the opportunity to look like the pragmatic compromisers. Maybe this energy bill has a better shot at passage this year than the developing C.W. had indicated a few months ago.

*** Mr. Deeds: Creigh Deeds getting the Washington Post's endorsement today might be the death knell for Brian Moran. Yet if Moran continues to launch negatives on McAuliffe, then watch out for Deeds. Everything is going exactly the way Deeds needs it to go in a three-way race: He gets the Post endorsement for Northern Virginia, and Moran and McAuliffe are butting heads.

*** Meet Leah Ward Sears: Today, we profile SCOTUS possibility Leah Ward Sears, 53, who currently serves as the chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court; she was originally appointed to the court by Gov. Zell Miller in 1992… Is an African-American woman, and the conventional wisdom is that Obama will pick a woman, a minority, or both… She and her husband, Haskell Ward, both donated to Obama's presidential campaign… Despite their opposing judicial philosophies, is friendly with Clarence Thomas; he reached out to her during her 1992 re-election bid when she was a target by some due to her race… In the widely reported case of 17-year-old Genarlow Wilson -- who was convicted of aggravated child molestation for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year-old girl -- wrote for the majority that Wilson's punishment was "grossly disproportionate" to the crime, which "did not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children."… Before joining the Georgia Supreme Court, served on the state's Superior Court and on Atlanta's city court… Received her law degree from Emory University (1979) and her undergraduate degree from Cornell (1976).

Countdown to NJ GOP primary: 11 days
Countdown to VA Dem primary: 18 days
Countdown to Election Day 2009: 165 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 529 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

"In back-to-back speeches, President Obama and former vice president Dick Cheney faced off yesterday, both forcefully presenting their sharply different views on how to keep America safe from terrorism, the effectiveness of harsh interrogations, and whether the 240 Guantanamo Bay detainees pose an imminent danger if brought to American soil," the Boston Globe writes.

Video: President Obama delivers his address on national security, terrorism and the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison.

The Wall Street Journal says, "Mr. Obama, speaking forcefully from the rotunda of the National Archives before the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, sought to regain the high ground in the debate, arguing that his changes were needed to restore 'the power of our most fundamental values.' He conceded that some key Bush-era policies would remain, from extralegal military commissions to indefinite detentions. But he said he had hoped that by banning interrogation techniques that others have called torture, and by vowing to close Guantanamo Bay in his first week as president, he would move beyond the divisive debates of the past few years, and pivot to his ambitious domestic agenda."

Video: Former Vice President Dick Cheney delivers his speech on national security.

The Washington Post: "Presidential scholars could not recall another moment when consecutive administrations intersected so early and in such a public way."

Politico adds, "The most popular politician in the country found himself pushed up against a wall by one of the least popular in Cheney – the leading voice in a budding Republican attack on Obama over national defense, one of the GOP's oldest (and most successful) cudgels against Democrats."

The New York Times' analysis notes that Obama finds himself stuck in the middle. "Rather than an easily labeled program, Mr. Obama is picking seemingly disparate elements from across the policy continuum — banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques but embracing the endless detention of certain terror suspects without trial, closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but retaining the military commissions held there. 'A surgical approach,' the president called it in his address on Thursday at the National Archives."

"But surgical approaches are rarely satisfying to those on either end of the political spectrum who tend to dominate political dialogue in Washington, particularly when it comes to an issue as fraught with emotional resonance and moral implications as the struggle against terrorists."

As for the reaction to the two speeches, Obama received mostly praise from the mainstream media's editorial boards. The Washington Post's: "Mr. Obama's wisdom lies in accepting the reality of war but insisting that it can be fought in fidelity to U.S. values. Yesterday, he spelled out the crucial difference. 'I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred,' he said. 'Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework.'"

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank observes: "Dick Cheney came out swinging… Cheney used the word 'attack' 19 times, 'danger' and 'threat' six times apiece, and 9/11 an impressive 27 times. It was as if all the angry thoughts edited out of his speeches by Bush aides over eight years were finally free to tumble forth."

More: "On paper, Obama should be an easy victor in his duel with Cheney; Obama is viewed favorably by about 60 percent of the public, Cheney by about 25 percent." But: "For the moment, at least, Obama's intellectual arguments can't match Cheney's visceral rage. Even if Cheney can't reverse the new administration's policies, he's building a case for Obama to be blamed if there is a terrorist attack on his watch."

The New York Times' Alessandra Stanley: Obama vs. Cheney "should not have been a fair fight, but cable is the great equalizer. The proximity of the speeches — and the way that they were given equal time and weight on news shows — blurred the distinction between the president and the former vice president. And that was not helpful to Mr. Obama." 

The Wall Street Journal's editorial: "As rhetoric, [Obama's] remarks were at pains to declare a bold new moral direction. On substance, however, the speech and other events this week look more like a vindication of the past seven years."

The Times' David Brooks has this take: "When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he's not really attacking the Obama administration. He's attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public a lot of the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way."

Brooks concludes, "[T]he bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure."

Politico: "After a one-two punch from Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney, House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican lawmakers worry that their party has overplayed its hand on Nancy Pelosi. The Republicans' fear: Gingrich's call for Pelosi's ouster has set an unattainable goal, and Cheney's jabs at her during a speech Thursday will allow Democrats to portray the controversy as a partisan attack by one of the GOP's most polarizing figures. 'If the story becomes about us and not her, it's a problem for us,' said a senior Republican lawmaker."

"A bill to create the first national limit on greenhouse-gas emissions was approved by a House committee yesterday after a week of late-night debates that cemented the shift of climate change from rhetorical jousting to a subject of serious, if messy, Washington policymaking," the Washington Post reports. "The 33 to 25 vote was a major victory for House Democrats, who had softened and jury-rigged the bill to reassure manufacturers and utilities -- and members of their own party from the South and Midwest -- that they would not suffer greatly."

More: "President Obama supports the bill, an aide said yesterday, though some provisions are weaker than what he advocated during the presidential campaign. In particular, Obama called for all pollution credits to be auctioned off by the government, but the House bill would give away about 85 percent of them. After that shift and a weakening of the bill's demands for new renewable electricity, the environmental group Greenpeace withdrew its support. But many environmental activists have accepted the changes."

In a conference call with reporters, SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger said she was optimistic about Congress's chances of passing the contentious Employee Free Choice Act, a.k.a "card check," NBC's Harry Enten reports. "There needs to be a vote on [the legislation]... I think there is going to be a vote one way or another. I think we are going to pass the Employee Free Choice Act."

The RNC has a new Web video – drawing on that old LBJ "Daisy" ad -- that hits the Obama administration over Gitmo.

From NBC's Mark Murray
In a post on the conservative National Review political blog, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney weighed in on today's Obama vs. Cheney showdown on national security. And he vigorously sided with the former vice president.

"Two speeches, two very different men," Romney writes. "Former Vice President Cheney seeks no political future. He speaks from the vantage of one who witnessed the killing of our fellow citizens, who deliberated and defined the strategy that would successfully prevent further murders of our fellow Americans. His address today was direct, well-reasoned, and convincing."

Romney continues, "President Obama, on the other hand, continues to speak as a politician... He struggles to explain how he is keeping faith with the liberal advocates who promoted his campaign but in doing so, he breaks faith with the interests of the American people. When it comes to protecting the nation, we have a conflicted president. And his address today was more tortured than the enhanced interrogation techniques he decries." 

From NBC's Athena Jones
America's founding documents are a compass that must guide government decisions on national security, President Obama told the audience at the National Archives, defending steps he says will make the country safer and improve its image in the world.

In a wide-ranging, 50-minute speech, the president addressed critics on the right and left -- without mentioning any by name. He spoke about his decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and how his administration would seek handle detainees; about his move to release legal memos on enhanced interrogation techniques; about his plans to overhaul the military commissions system; and about his decision not to release photos depicting torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama said the Guantanamo Bay prison was a result of "a series of hasty decisions" that were "based on fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions." But he also acknowledged that cleaning up the "misguided experiment" would be complicated.

When it comes to dealing with Gitmo detainees, Obama said for the first time that some could be transferred to highly secure, "supermax" federal prisons (like the one in Colorado), from which no one has ever escaped. He also said that prisoners who cannot be tried in federal courts or military commissions -- like those who declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden or who commanded Taliban troops in battle -- "remain at war with the United States" and would have to remain in prolonged detention under judicial and congressional oversight.

"I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people," he told an audience of some 160 people. "Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded."

Obama has long spoken of the importance of closing the Gitmo facility and ending torture as ways to restore America's moral authority in the world, and he returned to that theme throughout his remarks.

"We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe," Obama said. "From Europe to the Pacific, we've been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and our institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology."

Senior advisers Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod accompanied the president to the event, which the administration billed as a major speech. Also on hand were Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Eric Holder, CIA Director Leon Panetta, National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and White House Counsel Greg Craig.

In an at times defensive tone, the president stressed that his anti-torture position was not just a Democratic one, but one shared by people like his former rival Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). He quoted another Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), in defending the idea of sending detainees to federal prisons that already hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. Graham said "the idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational."

Later, during the afternoon press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs repeated Obama's reference to Graham and suggested new facilities could be built to house those deemed prisoners of war.

"There are a number of options," Gibbs said. "I assume that building a facility, upgrading one that isn't being used. There could be -- there could be many different options that are being used."

With a speech by Former Vice President Dick Cheney immediately following his own this morning, the president directly addressed the politics surrounding this debate, accusing some of his critics of fear-mongering. "As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult," he said, adding that these issues could easily be used as fodder for commercials designed to scare voters. " But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future."

He spoke about the need to keep some information classified under the "state secrets" privilege in the name of national security, but said his administration was reviewing that process to ensure that the privilege was not overused. And in defending his decision not to release images depicting the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama had an answer for his critics on the left.

"I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said," he said. "But I have never argued -- and I never will -- that our most sensitive national security matters should simply be an open book. I will never abandon -- and will vigorously defend -- the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe."

From NBC's Luke Russert
In a previously unscheduled press conference today, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer vigorously defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today. Hoyer stepped up to the press podium after GOP Rep. Rob Bishop introduced a resolution calling for a bipartisan investigation into Pelosi's claim that the CIA misled her about the use of waterboarding. The measure was later tabled by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Defending Pelosi, Hoyer said: "I have been saying for some weeks now that Republicans are pursuing a policy of distraction -- a policy of trying to divert the view of the American public from the serious business that confronts this Congress and this country." He then repeated an old line from former Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt saying: "Republicans for the last few weeks have been focused on the politics of personal destruction." Hoyer, then quoting a line from Time magazine, added: "[I]n looking at the substance of the accusations, it increasingly looks like she [Pelosi] was right."

One of Hoyer's lines of defense was to repeat statements made by top Republican officials over the past five years that were highly critical of the intelligence community. Hoyer quoted Minority Leader John Boehner as saying on December 9th, 2007 in regards to the national intelligence estimate on Iran: "Either I don't have confidence in what the intelligence community told me several months ago, or I don't have confidence in what they are telling me today." Then Hoyer quoted Newt Gingrich on the same estimate in 2007 as saying: "It is so professionally unworthy intellectually indefensible and fundamentally misleading it is damaging to our national security."

Hoyer's tone was stern and serious, and it was clear he was fervently backing up the leader of his caucus. Hoyer rejected Boehner's call for a bipartisan commission to investigate Pelosi's charge that the CIA lied to her and instead called for an investigation into how the United States supposedly allowed torture to occur.

*** UPDATE *** Boehner spokesman Michael Steel pushes back against Hoyer comparing Boehner's criticism of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate to Pelosi's dust-up with the CIA. "There is a world of difference between asking questions about complex -- and sometimes contradictory -- intelligence analysis and accusing the CIA of deliberately lying to Congress with no evidence."

From NBC's Luke Russert
There are not many things that all Democrats and Republicans agree on. But today, by a unanimous 411-0 vote, the House of Representatives passed the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 2009. The legislation now heads to President Obama's desk, which he will surely sign.

The weapons bill aims to give the government more oversight regarding the specifics of the military's budget in order to curb wasteful spending. Among the reforms within the bill are the following:
-- The establishment of an independent director of cost assessment who would answer to the Secretary of Defense.
-- The bringing about of a more concentrated effort to bring in commanders from the field when discussing what equipment is specifically needed in battle.
-- A mandatory design review before new equipment is actually constructed.

The bill sailed through the Senate by a vote of 93-0. The Congressional Budget Office says the new reforms will cost about $55 million dollars and should be in place by the end of 2010. It is expected that the reforms will save millions if not billions of dollars over the next decade.

From NBC's Mark Murray

Reacting to President Obama's speech, Senate Majority Harry Reid told reporters today that he and other members of Congress are still awaiting details about the president's plan to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Reid has previously said that he opposes the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States. Asked today if Obama's speech had made him soften his opposition, Reid called the address "a broad vision," but said he is looking forward to the details when they come out. "We want and are willing to work with him to close Gitmo," the senator said.

Asked what else Congress and the American people need to hear from Obama on Gitmo, Reid answered, "I'm going to leave that to the president."

"He is better at speaking than I am."

From NBC's Luke Russert and Mark Murray

Responding to President Obama's national security speech today, House Minority Leader John Boehner criticized the president's stance on the closing of Guantanamo Bay. "Republicans oppose releasing these terrorists or importing them into our local communities," he said today at his weekly press conference.
 
Boehner also accused Obama of holding a "pre-9/11 mentality" in fighting terrorism -- which he argued has made America less safe. "Today, the president spoke a great deal about trust, but he declined to provide Americans with a clear plan for what to do with these terrorists," he added.

"What he did make clear, however, was that despite the overwhelming opposition from the American people and a bipartisan majority here in Congress, he's moving ahead importing terrorists into the United States for trial in our own civilian courts. I think this is a pre-9/11 mentality and I think it'll make our nation less safe. We cannot afford to learn the same lesson twice."

Also in his press conference, Boehner again went on the attack against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her back-and-forth with the CIA. He also noted that House Republicans were introducing a resolution to launch an investigation into Pelosi's allegations that the CIA misled her on the use of waterboarding. As expected, however, the Democratic-controlled House tabled the measure.

"The Speaker has had a full week to produce evidence to back up her allegations, and frankly I am disappointed she hasn't done so," Boehner said. "We'll have no choice but to call for a bipartisan investigation.

During the Q&A with reporters, Boehner added that Pelosi's charge against the CIA was "damaging to our intelligence efforts and is having a chilling effect on our intelligence officials around the world." Boehner was then asked by reporters about a recent story being circulated by Democrats noting that Boehner accused the intelligence community of "misleading him" by changing the 2007 national intelligence estimate about Iran.

In response, Boehner said: "We are mixing apples and oranges here. It's different because when the national intelligence estimate with regard to Iran, it contradicted most everything I had been told in the six months leading up to it, and that's why I questioned what was coming out of this group that put the report together." When pressed further about whether his own accusations had a "chilling effect" on the intelligence community Boehner said: "No, I was questioning how this national intelligence estimate could vary and contradict a lot of information I had been told for the six months coming up to it. As simple as that."

From NBC's Ken Strickland

Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell said Congress didn't need another speech from President Obama, but instead needs a plan for closing Gitmo. "A big flowery campaign speech is fine," McConnell said at a news conference. "But what the Congress voted for yesterday is not for a speech, but for a plan."

He again criticized the president for setting an "arbitrary" deadline for closing the facility, adding that neither former President Bush nor Sen. John McCain set deadlines when they recommended closing Gitmo. "And the reason they didn't is because it's easier said than done," McConnell said.

The Republican Leader also challenged the wisdom of holding detainees in U.S. prisons. "It's not a question of whether we're capable of trying them here. It's a question of whether we should try them here." McConnell said past terrorists' trials have resulted in classified information being leaked, threatening national security.

"We don't have to take all of those risk," McConnell said. "Most of these trials ought to be conducted at Guantanamo, a $200 million state of the art facility with courtrooms."

McConnell supports keeping Gitmo open, but said he was eager to review any plan the president puts forward.

From NBC's Mark Murray
On the Obama administration:

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer.

Video: Former Vice President Dick Cheney delivers a speech on national security.

On enhanced interrogation techniques:

I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do... [T]o call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

There is no middle ground in the war against terrorism:

But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy.  When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes un-pursued … can bring on catastrophe - it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance. 

On Obama's plan to close Gitmo:

The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

On the talk about American values:

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

On the Bush administration's record:

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them.  And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

From NBC's Mark Murray
We'll have a more comprehensive write-up later, but here are some of the key passages from President Obama's speech today on national security, on closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and on transparency.

On the U.S. Constitution and American values

I've studied the Constitution as a student, I've taught it as a teacher, I've been bound by it as a lawyer and a legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief. And as a citizen, I know that we must never, ever, turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake. I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset -- in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.

Video: President Obama delivers an address on national security, terrorism and the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison.

On the Bush administration

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era -- that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law... Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight.

On the politics of Gitmo

Now, as our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These are issues that are fodder for 30-second commercials. You can almost picture the direct mail pieces that emerge from any vote on this issue -- designed to frighten the population. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.

And on transparency vs. security

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. And that's why, whenever possible, my administration will make all information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued -- and I never will -- that our most sensitive national security matters should simply be an open book. I will never abandon -- and will vigorously defend -- the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war, to protect sources and methods, and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. Here's the difference though: Whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions -- by Congress or by the courts.