Hillary Questions "Extreme" Interrogation Measures
There's been lots of debate of late about whether Hillary, who's come out against torture in general, is really opposed to specific special interrogation measures, such as "waterboarding," "cold room," and the like.
Now Hillary has just answered a torture question again on The View, and she appeared to move the ball forward at least somewhat:
She said:
I think it's really important for the United States to make it absolutely clear that as a matter of policy we do not condone or conduct torture...that gives us a lot of moral authority, which we have lost, unfortunately.We also have to be smarter about how we interrogate. There's a lot of evidence that you don't get accurate, good information from extreme measures. In fact, you get it by developing some kind of system that can really get people to feel that they need to give you that information...For both the moral and values reason and because of the lack of effectiveness that a lot of these so-called techniques have. we need to be very clear that we do not conduct torture.
Again, she's not condemning specific techniques such as waterboarding by name or characterizing them as torture. So there may still be some wiggle room here, and this is unlikely to fully satisfy critics who are hoping that she'll rule out the use of all such techniques by name.
On the other hand, she does come out and specifically question the effectiveness of "extreme measures," which she didn't do in her last closely-scrutinized interview on this. So in that sense she seems to have moved the ball forward at least somewhat from that last statement.
Comments (104)
Jeremy wrote on October 15, 2007 1:11 PM:So. . . Is she tacitly drawing a distinction between "extreme interrogation" and "torture"?
anns wrote on October 15, 2007 1:18 PM:Nuancing torture!!! Can you say Bushlite?
Greg wrote on October 15, 2007 1:19 PM:that is the unknown. for the first time, though, she appears to be saying something directly negative about the extreme measures in particular
keith wrote on October 15, 2007 1:20 PM:Greg:
When you say the "move the ball forward" I trust you mean vis-a-vis her previous vague statements and not vis-a-vis Obama/Edwards or any of the other candidates. Is that correct?
If that's correct, then I think you are giving her far too much credit. She's essentially been "forced" to adopt this position because she's drawn fire for he previous vague statements. Without that context, it is hard to judge just how much she's moved the ball forward.
If that's not correct, I think you should spell out just how she is distinguishing herself from the other candidates.
Just a suggestion.
hwc wrote on October 15, 2007 1:21 PM:The only "debate" has come from anti-Clinton partisans on the left misrepreting her very clear statements against the use of torture.
Just another in a set of false strawman campaign attacks from Edwards, Obama, and their supporters.
benjoya wrote on October 15, 2007 1:22 PM:is she saying we're using "extreme measures" now? is she criticizing the bush administration at all? OT, has anyone asked any of the candidates where they stand on retroactive immunity for telcos?
fromopensecrets.org (i deleted the no-longer-wtih-us members like conrad burns and the hammer)
Telephone Utilities:
Top 20 Recipients
2 Ferguson, Mike (R-NJ)
House
$117,200
4 Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Senate
$87,130
5 Hastert, Dennis (R-IL)
House
$68,800
6 Ensign, John (R-NV)
Senate
$64,250
7 Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)
Senate
$59,100
9 Pickering, Charles "Chip" Jr (R-MS)
House
$53,750
10 Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Senate
$52,550
12 Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Senate
$44,900
13 Engel, Eliot L (D-NY)
House
$44,000
14 Bonilla, Henry (R-TX)
House
$42,849
16 Lieberman, Joe (I-CT)
Senate
$41,450
17 Davis, Tom (R-VA)
House
$40,800
18 Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN)
House
$40,750
19 McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Senate
$38,000
20 Clyburn, James E (D-SC)
House
$37,500
anyway, how about that retroactive immunity?
Even if Hillare were making a distinction between "extreme interrogation" and "torture"--and I believe you have to really stretch the limits of reason to believe so--she doesn't condone either.
It's pretty amazing how many times she already explicitly rejected torture and people are still saying she hasn't ruled it out. Bizarre. Yet no one asks Edwards what anti-poverty or pro-labor measures he proposed as Senator.
hadenough wrote on October 15, 2007 1:33 PM:Greg:
"There's been lots of debate of late about whether Hillary, who's come out against torture in general, is really opposed to specific special interrogation measures, such as "waterboarding," "cold room," and the like."
No. There has been a lot of misinformation. There is a site called Horse's Mouth. Its pretty good, you really should check it out:
What Did Hillary Really Say To The Washington Post About Torture?
HRC: ... I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,'
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/did_washington.php
So rather than say "cold room" or "waterboarding" Hillary nailed the entire current bush admins torture in a short easy to understand sentence. That removes the possible that a serious person could honestly say 'yeah what about having somebody stand on a box with electrodes connected to their nuts? That wasn't mentioned.' Instead everything was covered quickly, coherently and in language anybody that wants to can understand.
Earth is Round: Some disagree
Yes some do disagree but we treat them just as we should: As unserious fringe idiots
oleeb wrote on October 15, 2007 1:35 PM:She appears to be against torture, but clearly is not saying she will put a stop to anything considered torture prior to Bush's fascist state approach to prisoner interrogation. She isn't really saying anything different than Bush says about it when you listen carefully. No condmenation of current practices, only vagueness. This is precisely why the possibility of Clinton becoming President has so many people worried. In many ways she really is similar to Bush.
Another way to think about it is this: she's playing a semantic game on the subject of torture. This is an important moral issue. It isn't appropriate to play a cat an mouse game on this issue. She would make a whole lot of people feel a whole lot better in general and specifically about her if she would just unequivocally condemn present policy, pledge a return to the old and accepted and internationally recognized legal standards upheld by the US for decades prior to Bush. But she won't. If even that doesn't worry the Kool Aid Club then there's just no hope for them.
Since she's so utterly resistant to change and to being responsive, probably the only thing that would make a difference with HRC is if her own supporters actually put pressure on her to be clear about this issue. The only reason there is any doubt about her position on this is because she chooses to keep it murky and unclear. I don't respect that sort of behavior on an issue like this. That's the kind of behavior Republicans exhibit, not Democrats. There's just no excuse for it. On this issue and on the war HRC simply fails the test of leadership, common sense, judgement, and decency IMO.
sparky wrote on October 15, 2007 1:35 PM:The problem with saying "I reject torture" without defining it is that that position is linguistically identical with the Bush Administration's position. So I think it's fair to ask her what exactly is the distinction. Also, I am puzzled by her reluctance to say, for example, that waterboarding is wrong. It is possible to say that without getting into the legal thicket of saying it is torture.
mike arauz wrote on October 15, 2007 1:42 PM:Saying "we need to be clear that America does not condone torture" is pitifully insufficient. Pres. Bush says the exact same thing, "The United States does not torture." If Clinton really wanted to be clear, she would explicitly condemn the specific extreme techniques that have been used by the current administration, and explicitly say that she calls the current extreme techniques "torture."
hadenough wrote on October 15, 2007 1:45 PM:"sparky wrote on October 15, 2007 1:35 PM:
The problem with saying "I reject torture" without defining it is that that position is linguistically identical with the Bush Administration's position. So I think it's fair to ask her what exactly is the distinction."
Hillary:
"I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed"
You:
"linguistically identical with the Bush Administration's"
No Hillary's position is 10,000 percent different. Now maybe you don't know what the Geneva conventions and US law covers but thats your problem. It is not up to a candidate to mention every possible form of torture when there are rules and laws governing conduct that already do cover everything. At some point you, the concerned voter, have to use your brain or else we end up with another bush.
Anonymous wrote on October 15, 2007 1:56 PM:Holy Mother of Sweet Potatoes, this thread is a mess. Hillary has explicitly condemned torture and said we will abide by the Geneva Conventions. All one has to do is read the Geneva Conventions to know that she is agreeing to abide by very high standards. So bizarre - all these posters in here today who have no idea what she has actually said pretending that since they don't know what's been said, nothing, in point of fact, has been said. Outside of their little world, nothing is ever said. But hillary has said quite a lot about torture and all of it in condemning language.
The only people who think Hillary hasn't rejected torture specifically are Obama supporters. It's an entire movement that's reality deprived - necessary, I suppose, to think he's marvelous.
centerfielder wrote on October 15, 2007 1:57 PM:So exactly how long should the list of methods she doesn't approve of be before you are satisfied by any answer Clinton gives?
There are literally hundreds of techniques and combinations of techniques that would qualify as torture, so quit pretending that being specific about the particular ones you have in mind covers the question of torture or would satisfy the Hillary Haters.
It won't.
The best answer is not to say we won't do this or that technique, but that we will not practice any technique that constitutes torture, which is exactly what she's done.
But apparently that's not good enough for the Hillary Haters.
bob wrote on October 15, 2007 2:01 PM:Since Hillary will be defining how we comply with the Geneva Conventions if she is elected President, she should be more specific about what they do and do not allow. Bush claims to comply as well.
She should also be specific about the techniques, with no wiggle room. Leaving the wiggle room is dumb on her part b/c it just makes it look like she is playing games on an important moral issue, even if that's not her intention.
Ask yourself if you would be happy if her statements came from the Bush/Cheney Administration, and I think the answer is pretty obvious.
I, for one, don't want to have to rely on the legal interpretation of the Yale Law Professors at Balkinization to determine whether or not our government may be torturing detainees. I want something absolutely clear to everyone.
John McCutchen wrote on October 15, 2007 2:01 PM:Same old triangulated Clinton horsewaste
Learn from experience folks
Brunehilde's a disaster waiting to happen
Teresa wrote on October 15, 2007 2:01 PM:Reading some of the comments on here is amazing. You sound like Mickey Kaus saying that Edwards is not vehement enough in denying that he had an affair, thus he must be lying.
I'm an Obama fan, but Hillary's statement was perfectly clear and correct.
keith wrote on October 15, 2007 2:02 PM:Hadenough:
I think you are right to an extent to quote Greg's earlier post. HRC does say that we need to have a bright line regarding torture, as the quoted line indicates. But then she goes on to say this:
I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to make sure we implement that
One of the laws we have passed is the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which contains the following provision:
"...[the] President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions"
Wouldn't you agree that, in light of the careful language she has used here, that there is something to the claims that she is leaving wiggle room on this issue?
Anonymous wrote on October 15, 2007 2:06 PM:Brunehilde Clinton, triangulating the "24" - Good German Among Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14rich2.html?em&ex=1192593600&en=a15739cf7909313c&ei=5087%0A
Again, it is crucial to understand that the memos recently revealed by the NYT apparently argue that using techniques like water-boarding can in fact be done in compliance with US law and the Geneva Conventions.
That is why generalities simply are not enough.
MarkL wrote on October 15, 2007 2:07 PM:But has she explicitly condemned child rape as a means of enhanced interrogation?
No? MY god.. maybe she favors having the children of detainees raped in front of them to elicit answers. This should be a front page news story!!!
OMG, Hillary might be a monster!!!\
what a useless thread.
Bloix wrote on October 15, 2007 2:16 PM:"Hillary's statement was perfectly clear and correct."
It was not correct. It was false. She said, twice, "we do not conduct torture." That statement is a lie. Until she says, "torture is a crime, our government must stop doing it, and the torturers must be punished," she is engaged in a coverup.
Duckman GR wrote on October 15, 2007 2:18 PM:All I want to know is why Hillary Clinton was one of the first guests ever on Murdochs latest business venture, some Faux business show meant to challenge CNBC?
Why are Democrats so god damned stupid and useless when it comes to fighting? Are they really a bunch of wimps like the GOP says they are? Or are they just so superficial that they think one little bit of opposition and they've done their work for the day?
Ever heard of putting a stake through their chest cavity?
Idiots, or worse. And I know all about Hillary and Rupert, this is more a question to throw at her and other "Fighting" Dems.
centerfielder wrote on October 15, 2007 2:18 PM:Ask yourself if you would be happy if her statements came from the Bush/Cheney Administration, and I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Bush and Cheney have a proven history vis-a-vis torture that Clinton does not.
This is a shameful, strawman argument.
If she says "waterboarding is out" the Hillary Haters will immediately rant about how she hasn't listed other techniques and no matter how many she names they will still rant about it not being comprehensive enough for them and that she has to say "waterboarding and other extreme techniques" to capture everything, but that is essentially no different than saying "all extreme techniques" which she has to it is utter BS to say that any answer she will give will be satisfactory.
But hey, why don't you just write exactly what Clinton should say word for word right now so she and we can know exactly what will be satisfactory to you, eh?
Kleiman has suggested:
"When I'm President, there will be no waterboarding, no cold room, no sensory deprivation, no 'long time standing,' and no renditions."
But since that leaves out a host of techniques that qualify as torture, you can be sure that he would not be satisfied with the answer, particularly since it doesn't condemn extreme techniques in general, but only a very small list of them.
Then did Hasselbeck attack her?
centerfielder wrote on October 15, 2007 2:23 PM:That is why generalities simply are not enough.
Did Clinton write those memos or endorse them?
No.
Strawman. Strawman. Strawman.
It was not correct. It was false. She said, twice, "we do not conduct torture." That statement is a lie.
And you are clearing taking the statement out of context and giving it a false meaning.
That is also a lie.
Arnold Dorman wrote on October 15, 2007 2:28 PM:What does Senator have to do to satisfy some of the people on this site? She clearly stated that she is against torture for moral and values reasons as well as the fact that torture doesn't work. She notes that we need to conduct ourselves in a manner that will give us the moral authority that we have lost. For those who need a translation:
Senator Clinton is against torture and for living up to the standards of the Geneva Conventions. She believes that the conduct of the Bush administration has deprived us of the moral authority that she intends to restore. Is that so hard? I say this as someone who has not decided between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama as I have the highest regard for both candidates.
Hillary's going to question a lot after Al Gore gets in....
Check it out...
Seems odd that Al Gore would display these videos about politics, health care and the war in Iraq, if he wasn't planning on Getting Into The Race? Just one day ago.
http://current.com/people/algore
DTM wrote on October 15, 2007 2:35 PM:centerfielder,
The memos reported in the NYT are obviously a crucial part of the context for this discussion, and in fact Clinton was specifically asked about the techniques currently in use during the now-infamous WaPo interview.
I make no claim about what she actually meant in her answer, however. I am just noting that those who claim her general answer was linguistically distinct from what the Administration has claimed are in fact mistaken.
Keith wrote on October 15, 2007 2:35 PM:Centerfielder:
I agree with you that she is in a no-win situation, but that is (IMHO) a problem of her on doing.
As I posted above, one of the carve outs she's allowed for is that we will abide by the Geneva Conventions and our laws. One of those laws is the Military Commissions Act of 2006--which, among other things, allows the President to define what constitutes torture under the Geneva Convention.
Given her history for being evasive on points and desire to find the centrist position on most issues, one can see how this behavior warrants some scepticism on the part of her detractors. Whether you agree with their scepticism is all together a different proposition. But that does not invalidate their scepticism (at least not in my mind).
Again, if she resisted her initial tendency to equivocate, she might not be in this position. But she didn't.
r€nato wrote on October 15, 2007 2:36 PM:
the next president really, really, really needs to renounce the extraordinary powers Bush has claimed for the executive.
Unfortunately, Hillary is not going to do that. She's going to enjoy the presents Bush leaves behind for her.
Scared Stiff wrote on October 15, 2007 2:38 PM:Why the emotional, knee-jerk responses? The fact is, her language DOES need a translation, and thus can be interpreted in any number of ways. I would think that any one paying attention for the past 7 years would be suspicious of these extremely carefully worded statements.
hadenough wrote on October 15, 2007 2:39 PM:"keith wrote on October 15, 2007 2:02 PM: "
Is the earth flat keith? Is that where you are at? Because I only have so much time to waste.
"One of the laws we have passed is the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which contains the following provision"
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259
Hillary says "bright line No torture", "abide by the Geneva conventions", "abide by the laws we have passed" and you are confused you don't know what she means. keith, are you saying every candidate has to list every form of torture there is and state that they won't do that before you are happy? Is that what you are saying? keith, I only have so much time to waste. Please pick on someone else.
Viking wrote on October 15, 2007 2:40 PM:What's vague? Here she said we should do what they did in WW II which was recently described in the Washington Post in regard to interogating Nazis: they built relationships with the people, they played chess and got more out of them that was valuable than they would have through torture. Likewise, Clinton recently said we have to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, the same codes our government has twisted, spurned and defied. There is absolutely nothing vague about Clinton's stance--people should stop trying to turn her into Bush.
DTM wrote on October 15, 2007 2:40 PM:By the way, this is from the NYT article:
"A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said Wednesday that he would not comment on any legal opinion related to interrogations. Mr. Fratto added, 'We have gone to great lengths, including statutory efforts and the recent executive order, to make it clear that the intelligence community and our practices fall within U.S. law' and international agreements."
texasdem wrote on October 15, 2007 2:48 PM:At the risk of cracking my head open on my computer screen (would THAT be torture?):
Does she believe waterboarding is legal or torture? If I promise to only ask about that one activity and no others, can I have a straight answer?
Because it's not mentioned and apparently Bush DOES think it's legal.
Keith's 2:02 post hits the nail on the head in that yes, we do need a DEFINITION of what is torture. I don't need an all-inclusive list. Just tell me if Clinton thinks waterboarding is torture.
dh wrote on October 15, 2007 2:48 PM:The key phrase here is "MATTER OF POLICY", which means that "Yeah, we don't torture people as a matter of policy, but wink, wink, nudge, nudge, if I 'have to do it' as president or some rogue CIA agent 'has to do it' then so be it."
Vik wrote on October 15, 2007 2:53 PM:
Hillary supporting torture in Oct 2006.
When did she switch her position?
keith wrote on October 15, 2007 2:54 PM:Hadenough:
You really need to take a chill pill and actually read what I wrote. My point wasn't that you (or I for that matter) believe that she condones torture. Only that her own words (and tendency to equivocate) give rise to the claims that she is equivocating (or being vague) here. Not asking you to AGREE with their scepticism since it is clear that you lack any objectivity when it comes to her.
While I trust HRC more than I do, say GWB, the one thing I think we all should have learned over the last 6+ years is that blind faith/trust in any leader is an invitation for things to go astray. I'm sure GWB believes he is acting in the best interest of the United States (never mind that most would disagree).
Larry Geater wrote on October 15, 2007 3:14 PM:gq, hwc, et all
How does her assurance that she will not condone torture differ from that given by President Bush? They apear to be similarly worded (parsed) to me.
Donald from Hawaii (an Edwards wrote on October 15, 2007 3:18 PM:This discussion borders upon the innane. How many hoops are you all going to make this woman jump through?
(And Vik -- why in the world would rational, thinking people ever accept the word of the New York Post as gospel on such matters?)
HRC's denounced torture at least three times (that I can recall) on national television, and yet that's still not good enough for many of you.
Well, as far as I understand the present situation, she's not the one whose official conduct is currently in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Stop holding her vicariously to account for the very real sins of her political opponents, and instead chennel your anger toward those scoundrels who perpetrated this monstrous crime.
NCSteve wrote on October 15, 2007 3:18 PM:Does forcing people to try to extract some meaning from her opaque public pronouncements count as torture?
Yes, it is silly to expect her to give a list of everything she's against, but saying "I'm talking about so-called 'enhanced interrogtion techniques' like x, y and z" would be helpful to her cause. Given that she's trying to address a perceived ambiguity in her past statements, one would think that, just this once, they'd break campaign policy and risk some clarity and, equally important, put enough passion behind it to convey real conviction and an appropriate sense of outrage.
Something, say, like this:
"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It's time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values."
sparky wrote on October 15, 2007 3:23 PM:I agree on this point with Keith and DTM. The point here is a simple one: Hillary has not condemned the methods approved by the Bush administration. The Bush administration has also said it does not torture. Ergo, there is no light between those two positions UNLESS Clinton explicitly spells out how her position is different. As pointed out above, (and at Balkinization and other sites) the 2006 act purports to permit coercion that would in the past been known as torture. Clinton's formulation would allow those practices to continue.
hadenough:
Look, you can defend her or troll on her behalf all you want, but the fact is that she has weasled out of saying ANYTHING specific on this point. And please don't tell me I don't know anything about the law, as it appears you are no scholar.
For the other Hillary borg members: Arguing that it's futile because she would have to list everything is a silly strawman worthy of a Bush ploy. I mean, really, how hard is it to say "no waterboarding"? Do you REALLY want to defend her on this point?
PS: I am NOT an Obama or Edwards supporter.
This is how low we've descended.
How is it remotely acceptable for a leading Democratic candidate for President of the USA to be vague about condemning torture?
Serious question: Is this what her supporters want?
IWW wrote on October 15, 2007 3:30 PM:Query: do we expect candidates to be aware of criticisms directed against them and to actively avoid doing things that might heighten or confirm those criticisms?
I ask because when the Edwards haircut "scandal" broke, a lot of Hillary and Obama supporters at this site responded with some version of "Well, there's nothing to the story really ... BUT given that he knows about the Breck-girl attacks, I question his judgment in opening himself up for more criticism."
Frankly, I think posters were harsher to Edwards than they are to Hillary. If we applied the same standard to Hillary, it becomes HER responsibility to assure listeners that she isn't leaving herself any wiggle room.
Taken on their own, the statement on The View or her answer at the New Hampshire debaate, would satisfy me. BUT, taken in the context of her own ambiguous position prior to the debate and the criticism after the WaPo article, I think she faced a higher bar: show how HER rejection of torture is different than the Bush administration's prima facie rejection.
I don't see her meeting that test in this statement.
lorelynn wrote on October 15, 2007 3:31 PM:The reason the Hillary haters are having so many problems here is that her rhetoric is flying in the face of what they believe she believes. They think she approves of torture, so when she says she doesn't, they go right into meltdown. But...But...But!
Support whomever you want, but quit trying to turn a good progressive Democrat into a conservative. It's never gonna work. Everything she says it going to be at odds with what you think she should say.
Most of America hearing her statements knows exactly where she stands. There's a tiny, idiotic portion of the internet, who find direct, unequivocal statements baffling. We have an entire thread full of 'em right here.
loki wrote on October 15, 2007 3:32 PM:Keith said: "Not asking you to AGREE with their scepticism since it is clear that you lack any objectivity when it comes to her."
Wow...talk about your kettle and pot! Keith there is nothing written in these pages about Clinton that you haven't jumped all over. It is as if you look for her name and dive right into the comments section to criticise...even the smallest things. It is you who is incapable of objectivity when it come to Clinton...and for that matter Obama, but for obviously different reasons! Heh-heh.
Larry Geater wrote on October 15, 2007 3:36 PM:Donald from Hawaii (an Edwards Posted,
How many hoops are you all going to make this woman jump through?
Juat the one. She has to say she will not torture in language that is slightly less equivocating than our president has used to quible about this issue.
sparky wrote on October 15, 2007 3:39 PM:lorelynn--
No offense, but I think your formulation is backwards. Hillary supporters hear something vague and assume that she means what they think she means.
But she doesn't.
One other thing: I am sure that seven years ago many people thought they knew what "compassionate conservatism" meant too. If we've learned anything over these years its that we should ask for something beyond vague generalities. And if you think Hillary is really against currently authorized interrogation methods, what's wrong with pinning her down on that point?
Xeno wrote on October 15, 2007 3:40 PM:Be honest: Even if Clinton said "No torture, period," it wouldn't satisfy some of her critics. They would still parse that declaration for days, trying to tease out some "wiggle room" that would allow them to condemn her for not being clear enough. She is simply never going to meet the Hillary-haters' requirements because the goalposts will just keep sliding no matter what she says and does.
While I am an Edwards supporter, I am getting damned tired of the repetitive anti-Clinton attacks.
Loki:
Guilty as charged. I have not drunk the koolaid with respect to Senator Clinton (for a variety of reasons) and I certainly am a supporter of Obama. Noting that fact doesn't preclude me from making the observation that her own proclivity to equivocate and vascillate on particular points makes the scepticism warranted in the instant case.
As you'll note I'm actually agreeing that I don't think she condones torture, but I understand why, in this case, she's going to have to go the extra-mile to make her opposition to torture beyond reproach.
Joshua wrote on October 15, 2007 3:47 PM:
Remember, the President says we don't torture.
The problem is that the definition he uses of torture is something that induces organ failure and/or death. Pretty much anything that does not is fair game to him.
I wouldn't expect it from the View but someone needs to ask Clinton how she feels about the President's definition of what is and isn't torture and if she agrees with it.
Using the words "extreme measures" is hopeful (since it could be interpeted to include measures like waterboarding; Bush would never say "we do not condone extreme measures" in the same manner), but I am sick to death of having to parse phrases and words like this. Be up front, Clinton.
hadenough wrote on October 15, 2007 3:47 PM:"sparky wrote on October 15, 2007 3:23 PM:
I agree on this point with Keith and DTM. The point here is a simple one: Hillary has not condemned the methods approved by the Bush administration."
Please pay attention. Hillary:
"I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed"
Do you, sparky, think every pol should list every form of torture there is and then condem each one? Wouldn't it be a little quicker and neater to just say "no torture", "abide by the Geneva conventions", "abide by the laws we have passed". Hmmm.... don't ya think that statement makes a little more sense than having every candidate list every form of torture anyone can think of then condeming each one? Doesn't that make more sense?
"The Bush administration has also said it does not torture. Ergo, there is no light between those two positions UNLESS Clinton explicitly spells out how her position is different."
What if Hillary said something like this:
"I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed"
Would that be explicit enough for you? Do you think every candidate has to list every form of torture anyone can think and then condem each one? Is that where you at spark? Is that what you mean? And guess what... the bush admin has not abided by the Geneva conventions. They hate the Geneva conventions. Unless someone was new to the planet how could they not know that? Is that it? You dropped in from pluto? What is wrong obamavangelist? What is this mental defect and why to cling to obama? Very strange.
"hadenough:
Look, you can defend her or troll on her behalf all you want"
Hey thanks a lot buddy, your approval means a lot to me.
What is wrong with obamavangelist? Why must they pollute every comment section they come in contact with? And can they really be this dumb? If so how do they remember to breath? So many questions.
centerfielder wrote on October 15, 2007 3:49 PM:Hillary supporters hear something vague and assume that she means what they think she means.
Hillary haters hear something and assume that she means whatever they need her to mean in order to drum up some criticism of her.
BTW, not a Clinton supporter, so LOL.
Blind faith in Hillary is every bit as dangerous as blind faith in Bush.
For the record, that would also apply to Obama, Edwards, or anyone else. I would be just as appalled if those or any other Dem candidates were as vague as Clinton on the torture issue.
So do we have explicit statements from the other Dem candidates on torture?
Duckman GR wrote on October 15, 2007 3:52 PM:At the risk of being obtuse, some of you need to get out more, because your relentless pursuit of parsing every effing word the pols say is driving you over the edge.
Try applying the reasonable PERSON test to what she said, then see if maybe that will suffice for an answer as to whether the woman wants to torture people or not.
And I'm no fan of Hillary at all.
Larry Geater wrote on October 15, 2007 3:52 PM:lorelynn
I do not think she is a conservative. I have not painted her as such. It is not Bush's conservatism that has raised my ire. It is his secrecy, and the way he distrusts oversight, and the way he parses his statements so that they skirt the truth. These are the ways she is like him.
Jeremy wrote on October 15, 2007 4:00 PM:hadenough: "Do you think every candidate has to list every form of torture anyone can think and then condem each one?"
If a candidate is asked specifically whether she thinks waterboarding is torture then she should give a specific answer. Is that so very hard to understand?
Duckman: "Try applying the reasonable PERSON test to what she said. . ."
If Hillary thinks that no reasonable person would think that waterboarding is not torture then it should be fairly simple for her to give a straight answer.
Joshua wrote on October 15, 2007 4:01 PM:Do you think every candidate has to list every form of torture anyone can think and then condem each one?
Sounds good to me. Why shouldn't a candidate do this on their website?
NO to waterboarding
NO to dogs
NO to sexual harassment
NO to forced nudity
NO to sleep deprivation
NO to forced standing
NO to sensory deprivation
NO to "extraordinary rendition"
Not only would it be highly effective and crystal clear, it would also show once again the things Bush has done in the name of this country.
loki wrote on October 15, 2007 4:03 PM:Keith said:
"but I understand why, in this case, she's going to have to go the extra-mile to make her opposition to torture beyond reproach."
Wrong. She does not have to go the extra mile. It would be useless. Nothing she says will make her "beyond reproach." Just look at you and the others in here. Look at all the posts in all the threads. Now take that and consider the general election and the rabid Republicans (soft of terrorism, weak on defense, unpatriotic, just a woman, etc) and well... I think you see what I'm getting at. There is nothing...nothing...that she can say to satisfy you and your cohort. No matter how reasonable or specific she is there's always something to nit pick about. Always. This is just one more shining example of it.
Of course you will (and have) blamed her for this, and I guess that's fine. Whatever. I just hope when it comes down to it you won't stay home in November of '08.
IWW wrote on October 15, 2007 4:04 PM:What NCSteve said at 3:18.
People use examples to make sense of general principles all the time. Why can't she offer some? Particularly when most people are likely to think of torture through the lens of specific techniques -- is waterboarding torture? The response that she can't offer an example because the list wouldn't be comprehensive is silly and flies against basic logic, imho.
DTM wrote on October 15, 2007 4:06 PM:Because I think this is absolutely crucial to understand, I will repeat again that the Administration apparently maintains that techniques like waterboarding are not only not torture, but also can be used in compliance with US law and the Geneva Conventions.
Again, I am not offering an interpretation of what Clinton has said. I just think it is very important to require every policymaker and every candidate--meaning her or anyone else for that matter--to describe with specificity what they believe is torture, what interrogation techniques they believe US law and the Geneva Conventions actually rule out, and so on.
And I acknowledge that it is very sad that we have reached this point (where we need to require everyone to be specific about what interrogation techniques they believe are unlawful). But that is the point we have reached.
Anonymous wrote on October 15, 2007 4:08 PM:Distrusts oversight? When has Hillary ever given any sign of distrusting oversight? What on earth do you think you're talking about?
You have an image in your head of Hillary that has nothing to do with who Hillary is, and how she votes. It's just so bizarre. Support whatever candidate you prefer, but that doesn't mean you have to demonize everyone else.
As to someone who alleged that I simply assume Hillary means what i think she means, I've been pretty able to predict how she is going to vote on things through out her senate career simply by listening to her. She tells you exactly what she's thinking and why she's going to vote the way she is.
Hillary is going to go back to traditional definitions of what is torture, and she is going to oppose it. we don't need it. It's destructive and it supplies less reliable information than conventional, non-torture techniques.
How does her assurance that she will not condone torture differ from that given by President Bush?
Because her assurances aren't contradicted by internal memos that embrace the very things that are publically condemned and because she has no history of actually employing those methods that do constitute torture, as Bush does.
BTW, somebody above demands that they only need the answer to "waterboarding."
Guffaw.
As if you are the only person that gets to demand things from Clinton and that answering your one question will shut everybody else up.
But answer me this question: if Clinton say no to waterboarding, are you really okay that she doesn't also say no to pulling their fingernails out with pliars?
I tell you what. Y'all get together and draft a list of the 100 most reprehensible torture methods with check boxes after each under a yes column and a no column and e-mail it to her to fill out.
Then, do the exact same thing to Obama, who after all, also hasn't said anything different than Bush, since both he and Bush have proclaimed that the US doesn't condone torture.
Of course, Obama recently said "[n]o more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning," but applying the same standards the Hillary Haters employ, he didn't condemn waterboarding by name and literally he only said it shouldn't be secret, not forbidden.
Since he didn't expressly state "I will not authorize nor will I permit waterboarding if I am elected president," I'm not convinced of his sincerity. It was just a banal declaration of being against torture generally, no different than GWB.
Hey, see that game can be played all around!
VictorLaszlo wrote on October 15, 2007 4:10 PM:DTM is spot on. (@ 4:06)
sparky wrote on October 15, 2007 4:11 PM:Do you, sparky, think every pol should list every form of torture there is and then condem each one? Wouldn't it be a little quicker and neater to just say "no torture", "abide by the Geneva conventions", "abide by the laws we have passed". Hmmm.... don't ya think that statement makes a little more sense than having every candidate list every form of torture anyone can think of then condeming each one? Doesn't that make more sense?
I thought I answered this above. But I will try one more time.
Current US law permits waterboarding and other measures that used to be considered torture. So "abid[ing] by the laws we have passed" means we can keep on doing that.
What is so difficult about seeing that? And what is so horrible about asking her, well, then, does that mean we should keep waterboarding?
Upthread Joshua put the same point a bit differently.
hadenough: Tell you what--I'd be happy with just one specific. Just one.
Incidentally, I don't go looking for reasons to hate Clinton. But I do think she is often disingenuous and a member of the oligarchy.
By the way, a statement to the effect that the person in question would accept the traditional international definitions of torture and the conduct forbidden by the Geneva Conventions (definitions that for a long time, we in the United States were very active in promoting and protecting) would go a long way to reassuring me. So I honestly ask this with an open mind: has Clinton actually said that?
VictorLaszlo wrote on October 15, 2007 4:15 PM:The Clinton supporters here who assume that criticism of their preferred candidate comes only from those who strongly support one of her rivals are mistaken.
It's not a zero-sum game.
Keith wrote on October 15, 2007 4:17 PM:Loki:
I'm not saying she has to do anything else to satisfy me on this point. I'm saying that I understand WHY people are sceptical that her position is unequivocal. I guess no matter what I say, you are going to continue to lump me with the rest of my cohort on this point. I guess I know how HRC feels. Oh well, c'est la vie!
And rest assured, I'm definitely going to be at the polls in February and November 2008, no matter who the Democractic nominee turns out to be--well maybe not Gravel (LOL).
Current US law permits waterboarding and other measures that used to be considered torture.
You cannot demonstrate the truth of the assertion that US law permits waterboarding.
You cannot even demonstrate the truth of the assertion that US law as interpreted by secret Bush administration memos permits waterboarding.
You may suspect it does, but you can't prove it does.
There is no law that says "waterboarding is not torture and is a permissible form of interrogation."
But if you think there is, cite it.
This is exactly the type of dishonestly presumed "facts" that Hillary Haters are using as the basis of their argument - unprovable assertions that are in reality simply their suspicions about what the Bush administration is actually doing regardless of what US law actually says.
DonnaG wrote on October 15, 2007 4:19 PM:Some forty or so comments trying to establish clarity on what is meant by any of Hillary Clinton's statements, this being just the latest of comment threads addressing a repeated concern about insufficient specificity.
Options are to either 1]put those statements into the best interpretation and trust that you know what she meant to say, or 2] express your concerns and get sniped at by those who give Hillary the benefit of all doubts and who will always interpret concerns/questions as 'attacks'.
I was glad to watch the video, and to hear what she had to say about the horrors of torturing human beings. But, frankly she was appalling about 10 seconds from the end. Go back and watch the video, even more than once if need be, and pay attention to her countenance and flat tone when she says the phrase, "for these moral and values reasons"........IMHO, that phrase came out of her mouth as if 'morals and values' are calculations in a math formula instead of a passionate expression of bedrock principles.
sparky wrote on October 15, 2007 4:24 PM:
DTM--
I think you have put your finger on the nature of the problem for me. The quote from her that keeps getting bandied about here seems to say two contradictory things at the same time: (a) honor the conventions (as you suggest) and (b) follow US law. Clinton knows full well that (a) and (b) conflict. Is it any wonder that there's no further explanation?
It's that kind of calculation that makes me irritated, and coincidentally, reminds me of SOP for the GOP. Maybe it will work in this election, too.
centerfielder wrote on October 15, 2007 4:28 PM:. . . that phrase came out of her mouth as if 'morals and values' are calculations in a math formula instead of a passionate expression of bedrock principles.
Hillary is being Gored, in the same way that Nader supported gored Gore and Dean supporters gored Kerry, by claiming she's GOP-lite and that she's not "passionate" enough.
"We've got to have someone who THUNDERS at the opposition or they simply cannot be trusted to carry the banner of ideological and emotional purity we true believers demand!"
Well, Obama has in reality said no more than Clinton, but I guess because he THUNDERED with politically-calculated outrage it means a lot more to some folks.
Praedor Atrebates wrote on October 15, 2007 4:32 PM:What we have here is vintage DLC/Clinton triangulation. She can't get a word out of her mouth without having at least 2 contrary positions to triangulate from.
john wrote on October 15, 2007 4:40 PM:well ist better than the bushies on torture - see link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaK3a3XSPA8 but ...
lorelynn wrote on October 15, 2007 4:44 PM:Can anyone present a single substantial reason to believe that Hillary is pro-torture in the least? She talks about how it isn't effective. She says she'll abide by the Geneva Conventions. i have no idea how anyone sees this as anything but clear and forthright.
I'm starting to think the polls are driving Obama supporters and anti-Hillary types right off the curb. They're running sqawking like Bill The Cat used to in the old Bloom County strip.
Liberal Larry wrote on October 15, 2007 4:48 PM:Ivy League elitists know how to triangulate.
mkolb wrote on October 15, 2007 4:50 PM:"The only "debate" has come from anti-Clinton partisans on the left misrepreting her very clear statements against the use of torture.
Just another in a set of false strawman campaign attacks from Edwards, Obama, and their supporters."
HCW, I'm with you. This high school behavior is getting tiresome.
I have been reading a number of different sources and listening to what Sen Clinton has been saying and I don't think she can be any clearer.
I really do not understand why so many Democrats have bought into the right's talking points about Sen. Clinton. One cannot distinguish between the right and the left's knee jerk reaction to anything Sen. Clinton says or does. It's all coming off the same scipt.
I understand why the right is so afraid of her, but I do not understand the Democrats fear.
centerfielder wrote on October 15, 2007 4:53 PM:I'm still waiting for someone to cite where Obama has said straight out with no equivocation and no room for parsing or spinning that waterboarding is torture, that its wrong not because its ineffective but because it is fundamentially immoral, and that he will not permit it if he becomes president.
And wondering why he isn't getting as much grief for his refusal to do so as Clinton is for her refusal to do so.
Keith wrote on October 15, 2007 4:59 PM:Centerfielder:
Here you go:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/04/obama_torture_and_secrecy_betr.php
And my guess why he's not getting as much (undeserved) grief as HRC is that he doesn't have her track record of equivocating and vascillating (whether or not deserved) on particular issues.
centerfielder wrote on October 15, 2007 5:09 PM:Here you go . . .
Sorry, but no more clear than anything Clinton has said.
Not surprising that you misrepresent Obama's exceedingly similar statement in a positive way and Clinton's in a negative way.
"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It's time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values," said Obama.
It doesn't say waterboarding is wrong; it merely says no more "secret" authorization of "simulated drowning," and we can't be clear that he's referring to waterboarding because he didn't use that exact term (the exact same type of argument being used against Clinton, btw).
Also, the statement doesn't reject an open policy of waterboarding because, as you Hillary Haters have argued (wrongly), "torture" doesn't include "waterboarding" under the current administration's definition of torture, right?
You can't have it both ways.
You can't insist that Obama is including waterboarding when he refers to generally to torture but Clinton isn't including waterboarding when she refers generally to torture.
Anonymous wrote on October 15, 2007 5:22 PM:[Obama] doesn't have her track record of equivocating and vascillating (whether or not deserved) on particular issues.
Riiiight.
Even assuming that were true, it's much more difficult to find instances of equivocation and vascillation when Obama misses votes that would actually require him to take a stand - a zero track record kinda has that effect.
brewmn wrote on October 15, 2007 5:25 PM:Hillary could easily end this by denouncing the Bush administration's use of torture since 9/11 (if not before). The fact that she refuses to do so is either political calculation that voters who value "security" will penalize her if she comes out strongly on this issue, or tacit acceptance of the premise that torture is necessary and/or effective in some situations. One reason is cowardice, and the other is Cheney-like venality.
And I still don't undertsand why any true progressive would want this evasive, triangulating, smug Republican in the White House. Even to the point of putting words in her mouth like "denounce." She has not even come close to denouncing torture, and her lack of outrage indicates she is not fit to lead us out of the moral quagmire that Bush has led us into. But Charles Krauthammer and the WaPo editorial board could live with her, so I guess that makes her OK to some of you.
DTM wrote on October 15, 2007 5:32 PM:"Simulated drowning" was the euphemism for waterboarding used in the NYT article, upon which Obama was commenting. In general, he was commenting directly on the issues raised in that article, and I would suggest it is consistent to view all the various comments of the candidates in light of that same context.
Keith wrote on October 15, 2007 5:32 PM:Centerfielder:
This isn't about Obama/Edwards or any of the other candidates. It's about HRC and equivocating and vascillating on points.
She opposed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, but then talked openly about a narrow exception for the "24 Hour Scenario." She has subsequently backed away from advocating that position at the recent New Hampshire debate.
The language in her latest statement, about abiding by the Geneva Convention and our laws, is pregnant with the possibility that she's parroting language used by our current president. He says unequivocally that we do not torture, but remember the MCA gives the President the authority to define torture under the Geneva Convention and apparently the secret memos define many of the most aggressive interrogation tactics as not torture under the GC.
In a lot of ways, in her attempts to be presidential in word and deed, she is inviting these comparisons with GWB (whether appropriate or not).
At least that's my take.
"I understand why the right is so afraid of her, but I do not understand the Democrats fear."
I don't fear Hillary. I just have no confidence that she will do anything noteworthy interms of promoting progressive policies or values. She will be much like her husband in that way, who ended up being a pretty good president, albeit for a moderate Republican.
Rather than engage in schoolyard taunts ("you're scared of Hillary, nyahh, nyahh, nyahh"), why don't you tell us why she has your support in the face of such fierce opposition from fellow Democrats?
2000: Gore = Republican
2004: Kerry = Republican
2008: Clinton = Republican
If thee be not of pure ideological heart in mine view, ye shall be cast as the devil and forsaken.
President Giuliani in 2008, courtesy of the Hillary Haters, just as we got Bush and Bush in 2000 and 2004 because of the Gore Haters and Kerry Haters who couldn't stand the fact that America couldn't stand their preferred candidate.
And calling Clinton a Republican is just deliberatly and pathetically dishonest, just as calling Gore a Republican was.
centerfielder wrote on October 15, 2007 5:47 PM:She will be much like her husband in that way, who ended up being a pretty good president, albeit for a moderate Republican.
Clinton had a Republican majority in both houses and tailored his administration to that fact - something a realist would do - and accomplished much.
Your comment is a dishonest and petty snipe.
And, once again, I'm not a Clinton supporter and I'm not sure you know whether the other commenter is either so put away your strawman before it catches fire.
This isn't about Obama/Edwards or any of the other candidates. It's about HRC and equivocating and vascillating on points.
Since they are all, by your standard, equivocating and vacillating it is about all of them and it is pretty clear that those criticizing Clinton have another candidate in mind so all of the other candidates are equally fair guests at the dishonest gotcha party you are throwing for Clinton.
centerfielder wrote on October 15, 2007 6:01 PM:All these claims that Democrats who aren't on the far left of the party must be Republicans sounds oh so familiar to what has happened in the Bush administration where everyone not to the far, far, right with abject loyalty to the party's radical wing is cast as a Democrat and tossed out.
How predicatable are the reactions of self-righteous ideologues, from either the left or the right: demonization, misrepresention, slander, and libel are their tools of choice.
keith wrote on October 15, 2007 6:01 PM:Centerfielder:
That may be your position (that they all equivocate and vascillate), but I think the facts bear out a different reality. Again, you may disagree with the reputation, but she's earned it. And she's going to have to be able to deal with it (in the primary and, if she's the nominee, the general).
Apparently you have me confused with someone else. I'm not throwing a gotcha party; at least not on this issue. I actually think she is a no-win situation, of her own doing, but a no-win situation nonetheless.
elrapierwit wrote on October 15, 2007 6:13 PM:I agree with Brewman, who has it exactly right in both his posts.
It is precisely because HRC equivocates that people are demanding specificity from her. Her lack of clarity and consistency on issues warrants people wanting to know precisely what she means.
None of the other candidates are vascillilating on policy issues like she is.
The biggest thing is that Hillary has not renounced any of Bush's policies. Matter of fact, she comes across as Bush/Cheney lite. She has not once renounced the war, she only claims to be angry about how the war was managed. Even then, she does not tell us how she would have waged the war differently. Hillary is the one who said she would not talk to leaders of enemy nations without preconditions and attacked Barack for saying he would be willing to do so. Now, Hillary claims she would meet with Iranian leaders, because we do not understand Iran.
The fact that Hillary does not understand Iran is frightening, it means her expert advisors who advised her to vote for this war with Iraq, do not understand Iran and thus she voted again for another amendment that can lead to war with Iran.
Hillary is the one equivocating and calling other candidates naive and inexperienced yet she is unable to state with clarity what her own position is. That is not savvy leadership nor will it result in 'robust diplomacy'.
Hillary is being asked these questions because she is dimissive, evasive and timorous on major policy issues and the core question is 'how can we trust her' which was Rolph's point in IA when she attacked him about his question on her vote.
If Hillary had heard the questions 3 previous times she should have had an answer ready without resorting to 'bitchslapping' a voter...and she NEVER answered his question.
Hillary is being asked for specificity because she equivocates and she has done it time and time again. We have heard her claims of 'if I knew then what I know now' and we are fed up with them...she could use the exact same line in response to her position on torture.
I shouldn't have to quess and debate where HRC stands it should be clear because she has been clear about where she stands on the issues...that is what leaders do and that requires good judgment.
So, I question her judgment...and I do not trust what she says.
It is her job to provide clarity and not mine to constantly wonder 'now, just exactly what did she mean here'
Anonymous wrote on October 15, 2007 6:19 PM:ElRapierWit - I think you just won "the stupidest fucking guy on the fact of the earth" award away from Feith.
Congrats on that.
Liberal Larry wrote on October 15, 2007 6:24 PM:Bush-Lite = President Giuliani
hadenough wrote on October 15, 2007 7:05 PM:"Joshua wrote on October 15, 2007 4:01 PM: "
Your torture list doesn't include someone standing a box with electrodes connected to their nuts. That means that you think someone being forced to stand on a box with electrodes connected to their nuts is not torture and that’s what you have the would US do if you were president. Shameful.
Also you don’t mention thumbscrews. So in your world you think thumbscrews are a great thing otherwise you have specifically condemned them. How about this, how much would you love to force someone to stand on a box with electrodes connected to their nuts and thumbscrews crushing their hands? Since you don’t specifically condemn that it would be just fine with you. Shameful again.
Other than you aren't a clown. No really you are not a clown.
hadenough wrote on October 15, 2007 7:14 PM:"Jeremy wrote on October 15, 2007 4:00 PM:
hadenough: "Do you think every candidate has to list every form of torture anyone can think and then condem each one?"
If a candidate is asked specifically whether she thinks waterboarding is torture then she should give a specific answer. Is that so very hard to understand?"
With the benefit of the doubt you can't be that simple. So you must think we are. Sorry you are wrong as I'm guessing is the usual. You say Hillary should have answered a question she wasn't asked. No one, as in NO ONE asked Hillary 'specifically whether she thinks waterboarding' is torture. You made that up. Did you think we wouldn't notice? Oy! Yet you breath! No one is as dumb as you think they are [excepting you].
Please think before typing. Hillary didn't answer a question she wasn't asked and you want us to be very upset about that. Yet you breath...
hadenough wrote on October 15, 2007 7:23 PM:"brewmn wrote on October 15, 2007 5:25 PM:
Hillary could easily end this by denouncing the Bush administration's use of torture since 9/11 (if not before)."
You could easily end this. Borrow a brain from someone. Then use it. Your problem would be solved.
Hillary in wapo on torture:
"I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed"
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/did_washington.php
Hillary on the view on torture:
"I think it's really important for the United States to make it absolutely clear that as a matter of policy we do not condone or conduct torture
...
For both the moral and values reason and because of the lack of effectiveness that a lot of these so-called techniques have. we need to be very clear that we do not conduct torture."
That view quote is the right in the post you are commenting on. Apparently that simple language is going right over your head.
Hillary says "bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed" in wapo and "For both the moral and values reason and because of the lack of effectiveness that a lot of these so-called techniques have. we need to be very clear that we do not conduct torture" on the view and you are still confused.
So we are back to the brain thing. Borrow one, then use it. You won't be sorry.
WaPo asked Clinton about "the types of methods that are now used that aren’t technically torture but are still permitted." It would actually be an insult to her intelligence to think she did not know to what the WaPo was referring.
loki wrote on October 15, 2007 10:27 PM:Keith,
Re-read all of your posts in this thread. You have done nothing but criticise and expressed doubt and reservation about whether Clinton is trying to leave wiggle room, is equivocating, or is being a politician. And you also make it clear that the criticism she's receiving is her fault. All over something so unbelievably trivial.
You also warned someone else, with no apparent sense of irony, about "blind faith" in any politician. This from one of the most fervent Obama fans I've seen.
You'll have to forgive me for "lumping you in" with the irrational cohort.
brewmn wrote on October 15, 2007 11:11 PM:"Hillary says "bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed" in wapo and "For both the moral and values reason and because of the lack of effectiveness that a lot of these so-called techniques have. we need to be very clear that we do not conduct torture" on the view and you are still confused.
So we are back to the brain thing. Borrow one, then use it. You won't be sorry."
If you see a denunciation of Bush in those comments, then you are one really, really, smart dude. You are so smart you're fucking visionary. Now shut up.
Hillary knows the game - "Mr. Dukakis, if someone raped and killed your wife..."
"Ms. Clinton, you've stated that you oppose waterboarding as an interrogation technique, but say New York will be incinerated within 5 minutes by a terrorist dirty bomb..."
Hillary knows in the age of mass distortion to keep spin areas free of sound bites. She said "Geneva Conventions" - that's her sound bite. She said "our moral authority, which we've lost, unfortunately". How did we lose it? By torture - waterboarding, stress positions, indefinite detention, etc. How do we get it back? By not doing that. Read the not very subtle message. But quit asking for a soundbite to use against her.
hadenough wrote on October 16, 2007 8:24 AM:"brewmn wrote on October 15, 2007 11:11 PM: "
You aren't gonna find a brain in that bag of cheetos.
Hillary in wapo:
"I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed"
Hillary on the view:
"I think it's really important for the United States to make it absolutely clear that as a matter of policy we do not condone or conduct torture...that gives us a lot of moral authority, which we have lost, unfortunately.
...
For both the moral and values reason and because of the lack of effectiveness that a lot of these so-called techniques have. we need to be very clear that we do not conduct torture"
It just doesn't get simpler than that.
brewmn wrote on October 16, 2007 9:54 AM:"It just doesn't get simpler than that."
Except for the language required to get through to your pimple brain, apparently. You can interpret her comments any way you want, but there's no acknowledgement there that what the US is currently doing constitutes torture, or that she would do anything differently from the current administration.
On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York continues to gain support and build on her lead. She led Sen. Barack Obama by 23 points last month -- 46 percent to 23 percent. She now leads the Illinois senator by 30 points -- 51 percent to 21 percent.
Apparently most Democrats disagree with the Hillary Haters.
Hmmmmmmm . . . who would be on the wrong side of the argument then?
Clinton is running for President of the United States, not president of the Leftists for Ideological and Rhetorical Purity Club.
If the best you can do is claim that she's a politician who vacillates and equivocates (duh!) and who is insufficiently vociferous in promoting certain memes with particular words and phrases, then you've already lost and you're just bringing down the party and America's future with you out of sour grapes.
I favor Edwards, but I'm not going to mess with Democratic chances in 2008 by obsessing on and harping about trivialities in the way Clinton is campaigning.
