Share

Email Print Comments Share

SPARTANBURG, S.C. -- Rick Perry forcefully reasserted himself in the GOP presidential contest Saturday night during a foreign policy debate here, an event that came on the heels of a string of sloppy -- and even embarrassing -- debate performances by the onetime front-runner.

The eight candidates on stage for the 90-minute CBS/National Journal debate at Wofford College argued over whether the United States should use enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding to extract information from suspected or known terrorists, and led by Perry, they piled on Texas Rep. Ron Paul for his opposition to the practice. They also discussed at length how foreign aid should be dispatched going forward, with several of the leading candidates backing a new idea that Perry put forth.

Two of the Texas governor’s chief rivals for the nomination, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, agreed with him on what appeared to be an off-the-cuff, but conservative, approach to foreign aid: Start all countries at zero and then make each explain why it deserves more. A follow-up question, however, forced Perry to backpedal somewhat on U.S. aid to Israel.

"Obviously, Israel is a special ally, and my bet is that we would be funding them at some substantial level. But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case," Perry said. His campaign followed that comment by issuing a seven-paragraph statement detailing the candidate’s commitment to Israel, something he has been consistent about throughout his political career.

Still, Gingrich backed up Perry’s principle. He pointed to Egypt and questioned why it should receive $3 billion before it even starts thinking about how the money will be used. Each country should be told, “Explain to me why we need to give you a penny,” he said.

Later in the program, Romney also agreed with the proposal. But after the debate, his advisers backtracked and insisted he only meant he agreed with respect to Pakistan, in part because it is a divided nuclear power that necessitates a careful approach.

That was not the only exchange that required some clarification from Romney’s team. He’s also struggled to explain his stance on the war in Afghanistan. In the past, he has said he wanted troops to come home as soon as possible, and he later said he disagreed with President Obama’s call to begin pulling them back in the fall of 2012, blasting it as a political decision. And he’s also decried the use of timetables for announcing any drawdown of U.S. troops abroad. During Saturday’s debate, though, he said he agreed with a 2014-based timetable.

Romney foreign policy adviser Rich Williamson, a former Reagan administration official, clarified that the former Massachusetts governor opposed any kind of initial timeline that would notify the Taliban as to when American troops would leave their country and simply suggested that he would defer to military leaders regarding an exit timeline.

The issue wasn’t a smooth one for Perry, though, when moderator Scott Pelley of CBS asked him to appraise the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and he offered a general response, suggesting only that there has been some progress.

Perry did manage to distinguish himself in several other ways, including U.S. policy on Iran. Recent reports suggest that the so-called rogue nation is closer than ever to developing a nuclear weapon. “The issue that has not been raised is that this country can sanction the Iranian Central Bank right now and shut down that country's economy,” Perry said.