Obama Campaign Charges Hillary Is Being Too Vague On Torture

Comments (45)

james wrote on October 11, 2007 11:19 AM:

Andrew Sullivan is not exactly an unbiased source in this matter, and neither really is Taylor Marsh. Take it at face value. I think it was pretty deceiving of WaPo to not post the whole quote, especially because it changes the entire context of what she was saying. Hillary definitely is not Bush, no matter what those who hate her try to portray.

Greg wrote on October 11, 2007 11:21 AM:

I agree that the full quote was important context

elrapierwit wrote on October 11, 2007 11:30 AM:

Hillary continues to obfuscate and evade answers.

The statement of 'drawing a bright line' is totally ambiguous without delineating what is on either side of the line.

It is as nebulous as 'ifIhadknown then what weknownow.....it says nothing!

Hillary's statements continue to lack specificity and allow her to act like a weather vane on any issue.

Leaders know how to stand up and specify what they beleive the policy should be with specifics. Hillary does not do this and that is what the politics of hope is about.

The politics of hope demands truth and judgment from our leaders.

The politics of hope speaks out and advocates for what is best for America.

The politics of hope refuses to allow politicians like HRC to stagnate America with the errors and misjudments of the past.

The politics of hope says we want leadership not equivocation and you HRC are not leading you are wavering on all the important issues. We cannot trust you to lead.

The politics of hope learns from the past and refuses to repeat the same errors as HRC has with voting for the KYL-Liebeman amendment...even Biden and Dodd knew not to vote for it.

The politics of hope says the world needs to know that.

the water hen wrote on October 11, 2007 11:34 AM:

It's clear she's drawing a bright line against torture. I think you have to assume she didn't, in order to read that statement and see otherwise. Ultimately, I think this is a move that will play out badly for Obama. He and the netroots have started speaking in loops and his attacks seem intended to delight his supporters rather than expand his lead.

I think he's going to come out of this lookin' a bit nutty to most of America.

ohiomeister wrote on October 11, 2007 11:36 AM:

Greg, what does Hillary's camp say about her stance on waterboarding? Is it torture? Would she permit it? What about the other techniques that Andrew Sullivan and Matthew Yglesias discussed?

They either give you a direct answer or they do not (and continue to take really petty sounding pot shots at Obama). That seems like a pretty straightforward way of getting to the bottom of this issue to me.

Hillary said that we don't know what the Bush administration is doing, but we do know many specific things that they have done, like waterboarding. Where does she stand?

bob wrote on October 11, 2007 11:39 AM:

Keep in mind that Bush constantly says that America does not torture by defining what is torture in a way so as to make the word virtually meaningless.

Is Hillary keeping that definition in order to continue saying that we don't torture?

You have to pin politicians down on these things; no more of this "just shut up and trust us" stuff.

Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 11:40 AM:

The issue here is whether she condones what Bush is doing now, and she didn't say that she doesn't. She says that she opposes torture and supports the Geneva convention but DOES NOT ANSWER the "special interrogation methods" question of what Bush is doing now. She is trying to say - I don't know what they are doing now so I have no opinion on that, but I oppose torture.

Now some may be thinking that since she says that she opposes torture that the case is closed but note how she didn't answer the question. Also, as has been pointed out recently, she very recently did support the special exemptions for torture (that Bill supports) and was on the record for it until the recent debate where she now no longer supports it.

I don't question that she no longer supports torture but since her position has shifted recently, these are germane questions since she did not answer questions about whether what Bush is doing is torture or not and whether she agrees with those methods or not.

She punted the question and a careful reading shows that so the WaPo is not being unreasonable in my opinion.

JoeCHI wrote on October 11, 2007 11:42 AM:

Who care what Sullivan says?

The man has demonstrably the worst track-record in contemporary punditry.

MO Blue wrote on October 11, 2007 11:46 AM:

Not a Hillary fan, but when reading her entire statement she wasn't vague at all.

Bad move by Obama IMO. There are plenty of other issues to go after Hillary on such as her initial vote for invading Iraq, her vote on Iran, her plans to keep a fairly large occupation force in Iraq etc. Trying all those things together would portray her as one of the least likely to really end the occupation. Going after her on something that can be so easily disproved makes his more truthful statements appear less credible.

oleeb wrote on October 11, 2007 12:04 PM:

This is another instance of why so many Democrats are wary of Clinton.

She could resolve this little issue with a few strong, declarative sentences but for some reason, thus far, she just can't be unequivocal about the issue of torture. Why is that? It legitimately leaves people wondering what her position is and whether or not she is genuinely opposed to torture and the policies Bush has implemented in this regard.

I agree her full comment was better than the chopped version the Post printed which really made her look bad. However, as I said, if she just made a clear statement this would go away. Why doesn't her campaign simply issue something along the lines of the following:

"Senator Clinton is unequivocally opposed to the use of torture or other violations of internationally recognized standards of interrogation and/or treatment of prisoners/detainees by the United States or it's personnel.

As President, she will make sure that no agency or operatives of the US government engage in such activity.

As President she will eliminate any practices that have been instituted in violation of US and/or International Law in recent years. There was never any dispute about what does or does not constitute torture in any administration prior to this one. She will return the United States to the standards previously adopted and adhered to for decades and do so without exception."

That kind of statement would put the issue entirely to rest. I see no reason why her campaign doesn't just go ahead and do something like that. If she's opposed to torture for real, it shouldn't be a problem at all.

elrapierwit wrote on October 11, 2007 12:04 PM:

MoBlue,

there isn't a need to be a Hillary fan to know that her entire statement was NOT in the WaPO interview.

Her statement in the interview that was printed in the WAPO is vague and that is what Obama addressed.

His creditible is unchanged.

TPM quickly put up the entire transcript from HRC's WaPo interview....unlike how they did not at anytime post the Senate record showing that the Kyl-Lieberman vote was tabled by Reid.

Instead they allowed the misleading view that Obama had skipped the vote.

It would be helpful to have balanced and fair reporting for all the candidates and not just ones folks beleive are inevitable.

JimSheridan wrote on October 11, 2007 12:05 PM:

Anne E. Kornblut, the author or the WaPo story, has a history of misleading and outright lying articles about Senator Clinton going back to the New York Times. By this afternoon I trust that Media Matters will be able to offer the list of outright lies from Kornblut. When she was as the Times, she had to publish retraction after retraction until she "left". My guess is the WaPo will give her a pass. I hope Senator Obama, for whom I have a great respect, will modify his statement when he reads the entire quote.

RG wrote on October 11, 2007 12:15 PM:

I agree with elrapierwit above. There is a real pattern in what Hillary says about torture, about her recent vote on Iran, about her vote for the Iraq war. You really have to read carfully to get her version of what's OK and what's not. This is a real difference between her and Obama and he has to continue to point it out so people get it. That's hopeful to me.

hello wrote on October 11, 2007 12:17 PM:

Hillary in the last debate said she doesn't approve of torture.

wake up people.

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on October 11, 2007 12:20 PM:

The real issue is not whether some bloggers who never liked Hillary in the first place.
It is that Hillary knows how to keep the focus on the secrecy and dishonesty of the Bush
Administration. Nothing Hillary said, no matter which version is used, seems so shocking.
It made it clear was that we won't know what Bush has been permitting until it is fully
disclosed in the next administration.

NCSteve wrote on October 11, 2007 12:20 PM:

I'm not clear on where Hillary's transcript came from. Presumably, its accurate and, if it is, the WaPo people were inexcusably sloppy and wrong to compress the quote so that it fit with their chosen narrative, but what else do you expect from the MSM?

But, having said that, her answer was what we lawyers call "non-responsive," i.e. she rather conspiciously failed to answer the question asked, which was:

"would you do something in your first couple days to address that, suspend some of the special interrogation methods immediately or ask for some kind of review?"

Where did she answer that question? Why the heck couldn't she just answer it instead of rolling off onto the answer to some question that wasn't asked. The quite evident (to me, anyway) reason is that they asked her a question that she didn't have a scripted answer to, so she went with the scripted answer that was closest to the question.

If this were an isolated incident, it wouldn't be a big deal, but since she got into the Senate, her straight answer to politician gobbledegook answer ratio has been about 1:100. (And most of the straight answers have come in the context of crass triangulation like her flag burning amendment support.) This is symptomatic of my fundemental gripe with her.

What's also symptomatic of my fundemental gripe with her is the way her campaign reacts to every hit, justified or not, from Obama with some minor variation the exact same drivel. It's clearly copied from the way the RNC used to respond to every substantive critique of the latest insanity President Cheneytine with a dismissive press release lamenting the divisive rhetoric of the "the angry and adrift Democratic Party."

I guess that just shows how "shrewd" and "tough" she is, however. Yeah, like Willie Stark was shrewd and tough.

DonnaG wrote on October 11, 2007 12:24 PM:

Tortuously vague language is the issue. Ms Hillary uses it a lot, as does Bush. That is an issue for voters wanting and deserving clear positions from the candidates.

Attacking the persons who bring this up, trying thus to shunt away the validity of the criticism rather than to address the substance of the tortuous language problem is, in itself, the kind of obfuscation I have noticed a lot coming from Hillary and her campaign and supporters.

Hillary demonstrates a significant weakness every time she straddles her hypothetical fences, especially to this extent of refusing to take a stand on specific human rights abuses.

anns wrote on October 11, 2007 12:31 PM:

There are some things that never need nuance, e.g. torture.

Now, that Senator Clinton has once again pushed me away will Al Gore please become the patriot we need and run for president.

keith wrote on October 11, 2007 12:34 PM:

Here's the link describing the tabling of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. The money quote:

Due to the still outstanding concerns raised over the amendment, Reid announced this evening on the Senate floor that Lieberman-Kyl bill “will not have a vote in the near future.” Reid added that negotiations are ongoing and “maybe the night will be bring more clearness to the issue. But right now I think it’s fair to say there will be no votes tonight.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/durbin-lieb-kyl-amdt/

And a link to the roll call vote, note the time of the vote: 12:44 pm

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position

And as Marc Ambinder reported the other day, Reid's son is Clinton's proxy in Nevada. Money quote:

As proxies, Clinton sent Rory Reid, son of Harry Reid, and Chris Giunchigliani, a powerful Clark County commissioner.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/a_silver_lining_for_edwards_in.php

At minimum, it should be CLEAR that Obama wasn't ducking the vote (McCain missed it as well and I can't imagine anyone is saying HE ducked it). So feel free to say he missed the vote, but don't imply that he did so because he didn't want to take a stand. The stuff about Reid, is, I admit, a little conspiratorial, but I thought it would help round out the picture a little.

Michael Caine wrote on October 11, 2007 12:34 PM:

Bush says he is against torture and that the U.S. doesn't torture. He, like Clinton, then refuses to define what they consider torture to be or where they draw the line.

Its all well and good, as well as being politically expedient, to say you are against torture and that you draw a line about it. However, when asked again and again as to what the person considers torture they evade, it makes the stance look more like a campaign gimmick without substance rather than a clear stand against practices that have come to light.

Coupled with Hillary's meltdown when confronted by a question about her Kyl-Lieberman vote and AUMF, Hillary does not deserve or have the benefit of doubt. If she does not answer these questions in a straight-forward manner she will continue to see her lead plummet from its high of 53% to 42% in the last week.

And yes, the last line was a snark about how her campaign and its supporters tried to use a thoroughly disreputable outlier of a poll to argue that Hillary was running away with the campaign. It takes more than hype to win an election.

So far that has been all the Hillary campaign has been running on. Ask her questions and she gives vague feel good rhetoric and encourages her supporters to attack the person rather than actually answer the question.

Such actions aren't acceptable when Republicans do it and they aren't when Democrats do it either!

biff diggerence wrote on October 11, 2007 12:46 PM:

This is the essential problem with Senator Clinton's candidacy.

She's desperate to assure the angry, white male voter that she can be as ruthless as any angry, white male.

Torture, invade Iran.

Her "snail on the edge of a straight razor" positions shouldn't surprise anyone.

gqmartinez wrote on October 11, 2007 12:58 PM:

Wow, the lengths people have to go to to make Hillary look bad. I hope after the primary, when the passions about the different candidates subsides, people get a chance to reflect on what they are saying. Hillary rejected torture at a debate, even in the quote from the WaPo said she already was against tortrue, and made a further "bright line". What she wasn't sure about was the extent to which Bush has actually carried out policies from the memos (which no one can really say for sure). You really have to stretch the imagination to find vagueness. And sorry, anyone who claims that Hillary had a "melt down" in response to the K-L amendment question either did not see the exchange personally, or are deliberately lying. But again, the rule is: if something bad can be said about the Clintons, it must be true regardless of veracity. (not that some criticisms aren't legit, just more often than not they really aren't.)

Stephen H wrote on October 11, 2007 1:00 PM:

In the first place, she wasn't asked whether she approved of specific forms of torture like waterboarding. She was asked whether she approved of the techniques the Bush administration was using. And since the Bush adminisatration won't come out and publically say what it's doing, she could not have answered any other way without opening herself up to the charge that she was endangering our security by disclosing classified information. And believe me, they would do it in a heartbeat.

She came out very clearly against torture, and for the Geneva Conventions, but some people will never give her the benefit of the doubt, even when there is precious little doubt.

As far as Sullivan, his whole purpose in life is to go around looking for whatever slander he can find about "the Clintons" and then harp upon it endlessly. He's Drudge, but with a better vocabulary. You have to always remember that in spite of the fact that Sullivan eventually turned against Bush and the war, he's still a Republican. And hating the Clintons and attacking their character is what Republicans do. Then he hypocritically complains about - and of course blames the Clintons for - the polarization in American politics.

BevD wrote on October 11, 2007 1:04 PM:

Why would the Washington Times, er, Post deliberately mislead the readers with this bit of selective quoting?

She clearly states she will abide by the Geneva Convention and will not condone torture. It is also clear to any sentient person that her answer, in reference to Bush - is that HE is sending mixed messages to the nation as to whether he is employing torture or he is not.

anon wrote on October 11, 2007 1:08 PM:

Attempting to differentiate yourself from the Bush Administration by repeating the same line the Bush Administration gives--we will follow the law--isn't a terribly strong argument to begin with.

Making it just seconds after you've carried the Bush Administration's water and pretended we don't know enough to condemn their current actions...well, that moves it from "not very strong" to "uh, are you trying to tell us something here?"

It's all the more concerning when you note that extraordinary rendition--outsourcing torture--didn't begin under Bush. It began under Clinton.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

Jeremy wrote on October 11, 2007 1:10 PM:

Hillary: torture | not torture

Voters: Nice. You even put the line in bold, but could you be more specific. What exactly is "torture"? Is water-boarding torture?

Hillary: Look, I already made a bright/bold line. Did some one plant you to ask that? Who's out to get me? You voters have no right to ask for specifics.

Obama: C'mon. Just give a straight answer.

Hillary: You can't criticize me! Whatever happened to "hope"? Na na nan nanan naaa naaa. I used your own slogan against you again! PWN3D!!!!111!1!!one!!

hwc wrote on October 11, 2007 1:12 PM:

Why don't you just listen to her full answer in this audio clip? It's at the end of the Iraq answer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/10/09/VI2007100901025.html

The specific question asked was whether Clinton would issue an executive order on her first day stopping what Bush is doing. She said that she doesn't know the full extent of Bush's use of torture. That part of her answer was an attack on Bush's torture policy and and lack of transparency.

Anonymous wrote on October 11, 2007 1:16 PM:

Jeremy nailed it.

hwc wrote on October 11, 2007 1:16 PM:

BTW, the audio interview has been up at the WaPost website since their article was published, linked from the article.

The fact that bloggers like Sullivan et al didn't bother to listen to the actual interview reflects pretty poorly on their journalistic skills.

hwc wrote on October 11, 2007 1:20 PM:

BTW, in the audio clip, you will hear that Clinton is slapping the table for emphasis as she says "we have to draw a bight line" and "abide by the Geneva Convention".

Laertes wrote on October 11, 2007 1:33 PM:

Bush also says "we don't torture" and insists that we're abiding by the Geneva Convention. Now that W has shown us just how much abuse can be carried out behind such rhetoric, HRC comes along as says the same thing and is surprised when people are alarmed?

She needs to Say More about this. Soggy old "It's disappointing that my opponent is a big doodyhead" type statements aren't going to cut it.

To anyone who thinks this is just about Hillary-bashing, I ask you: Has your objection to torture been merely about Bush-bashing?

FilbertSF wrote on October 11, 2007 1:35 PM:

hwc, it doesn't matter if there's an audio interview.

These anti-HRC just hate her and will find any excuse to bash her.

"we should not conduct or condone torture"
"we have to draw a bright line and say 'No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions"

How much more clearly can a Hillary be?

hwc wrote on October 11, 2007 2:08 PM:

I am amazed that so-called journalists never go to the original speech or interview sources. Instead, they rely on often-muddled characterizations of those original sources by other so-called journalists like Ann Kornblut.

I think they do it so they can get back to the important stuff -- kvetching about the contents of their goodie-bags on the campaign bus or whether the candidate is showing too much clevage.

Sally wrote on October 11, 2007 2:16 PM:

Where's the tape? In one of the debates, I believe the last one, Senator Clinton was very cler that she was against torture. If only oh so many were against torturing her with untruths, out-of-context quotes, attributing to her things she never said, you name it.

Sally wrote on October 11, 2007 2:16 PM:

Where's the tape? In one of the debates, I believe the last one, Senator Clinton was very cler that she was against torture. If only oh so many were against torturing her with untruths, out-of-context quotes, attributing to her things she never said, you name it.

DTM wrote on October 11, 2007 2:20 PM:

I think it is crucial to understand that the memos described in the recent NYT article apparently argued that various techniques, including water-boarding, both were not torture and were not a violation of the MCA. The MCA in turn adopted the language of the Geneva Conventions, although the memos apparently argued for an interpretation of that language at odds with prior U.S. and international law.

Given this context, it simply is not enough for a person today to say that they will not torture and will not violate the Geneva Conventions, because we know that there are people who have argued that techniques like water-boarding meet that standard. Rather, people have to be more specific, or else they really are not answering the crucial questions presented by the recent revelations.

Praedor Atrebates wrote on October 11, 2007 2:31 PM:

Hillary is doing exactly what Pres Carter accused Bush of doing with regards to torture: self-defining torture so that whatever we are doing (Bush) or what we would be doing (Hillary) would be simply defined as "not torture". Ta-da! Bright line! We don't torture because nothing we do is to be defined (by us) as 'torture'.

Hardly good enough. Also, there is a lot more to this than the Geneva Conventions. There is that treaty against torture, abuse, and inhumane treatment to contend with as well and IT makes NO delineation between combatant or noncombatant or illegal combatants. It applies to ALL regardless of their status. Could Hillary also be playing with the Geneva Conventions the way Bush has? Will she will claim that, "these prisoners aren't covered by Geneva...blah blah"?

MO Blue wrote on October 11, 2007 3:03 PM:

elrapierwit We all know that the MSM cherry picks sections of Democratic statements to put them in the worst light possible. I think that before a candidate makes charges against an opponent they (or their staff) need to read the entire statement and not just the a few sentences that the MSM choses to use. IMO it is their responsibility to made sure that their criticism is warranted. Obama did not do that.

What TPM does or does not do is not the issue.

Gina Byrd wrote on October 11, 2007 3:30 PM:

Good job on supplying the entire quote from Clinton. However, you will be asking whether or not she really "cackles" next. I don't get what is so equivocal about, "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." That means Hillary stands for (1)NO TORTURE; (2)Abiding by the Geneva conventions, which, btw, advocate a NO TORTURE stance; (3)Abide by the laws we have passed, again, indicating a NO TORTURE stance, minus any special executive line notes Pres. Bush is so good at appending; (3)Ensuring we implement our laws, which take a stance of NO TORTURE. This all seems fairly clear to me where Hillary stands on repudiating torture. Hillary Clinton clearly repudiates torture. Gina Byrd

rage wrote on October 11, 2007 3:52 PM:

Shillary's torture mantra and her support of the Dumya doctrine are irreconcilable. Sure, she claims that we don't torture and we should abide by the Geneva Conventions. Yet, she has funded the tactics that breed torture. So, there really is no parity between her statement on torture and her actions in the Senate, with or without the cackle. The thing is none of her competitors have said much more than she has, with actions to support their claim either. All we've gotten from most of the Dems is a lot of empty rhetoric backed up by a lot more empty rhetoric. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who has put his money where his mouth is, calling for the impeachment of Cheney first. But, he hasn't raised 80 million dollars and dove nose first up the butts of the military industrial corporate complex to place the interests of corporate personhood above the interests of his voting constituents, affording his past mournful cries for America to end torture and extraordinary rendition zero media attention.

www.votenic.com wrote on October 12, 2007 4:25 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

Results Posted Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

runescape money wrote on December 6, 2007 2:27 AM:

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold
buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve online isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve online isk

runescape money wrote on December 6, 2007 2:28 AM:

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold
buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve online isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve online isk

111111 wrote on January 25, 2008 6:27 AM:

lotro gold
Lord of the Rings Online Gold
Lord of the Rings Gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
Lord Of The Rings Gold
Lord of the rings online gold
Warhammer gold
Warhammer money
War gold
War money
Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credit
World of Warcraft gold

111111 wrote on January 25, 2008 6:28 AM:

lotro gold
Lord of the Rings Online Gold
Lord of the Rings Gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
Lord Of The Rings Gold
Lord of the rings online gold
Warhammer gold
Warhammer money
War gold
War money
Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credit
World of Warcraft gold

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)