Kornblut still struggling with Clinton quotes?
SUMMARY: The Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz reported that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was "vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA." Adding, "She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unless elected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies." But blogger Greg Sargent later reported that Kornblut and Balz omitted from their article Clinton's statement that "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."
In an October 10 article, Washington Post staff writers Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz reported that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), in a Washington Post interview, was "vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA." The article added: "She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unless elected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies." The article went on: " 'It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages.' Clinton said. 'I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know.' " However, blogger Greg Sargent later reported that, according to a transcript of the interview he had received from the Clinton campaign, Kornblut and Balz omitted from their article Clinton's statement during the interview that "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." While Kornblut and Balz wrote that Clinton said "she does not condone torture," they did not report her specific reported pledge "to draw a bright line" and abide by the Geneva conventions and by U.S. statute.
As Media Matters for America previously documented, in a July 16, 2006, New York Times article, Kornblut, then with the Times, falsely reported that Clinton criticized her fellow congressional Democrats "for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects." In fact, Clinton did not say that the Democrats were "wasting time," but rather that the Republicans in charge of Congress at the time were doing so by focusing on "controversial ... things that try to inflame their base so they can turn people out and vote for their candidates." In a July 18, 2006, "Editor's Note," the Times acknowledged that Kornblut's assertion that Clinton criticized Democrats in Congress for "wasting time" and "for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters" was false. The "Editors Note" attributed the falsehood to "a misinterpretation of a passage in [Clinton's] speech in which she first referred to the Democrats' agenda in the Senate and then went on to criticize the actions of the Republican majority in Congress."
From Kornblut and Balz's October 10 Washington Post report:
Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unless elected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.
"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know."
From the interview transcript Sargent reported receiving from the Clinton campaign:
Q: Can I ask you a follow up? You mentioned Blackwater, you've said that at the beginning of your administration you'd ask the Pentagon to report. When it comes to special interrogation methods, obviously you've said you're against torture, but the types of methods that are now used that aren't technically torture but are still permitted, 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?
HRC: Well I think I've been very clear about that too, we should not conduct or condone torture and it is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing, we're getting all kinds of mixed messages. I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new President. I think once you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know. I was very touched by the story you guys had on the front page the other day about the WWII interrogators. I mean it's not the same situation but it was a very clear rejection of what we think we know about what is going on right now but I want to know everything, and so 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.
Slick Hillary - so you can't or won't really say, gosh don't know, can't be specific, darnit can't really say much now, not enough info, or be straight with the voters, UNTIL you become president? Wow.
Of course that isn't what she said at all. Looks like you have the same problem that Kornblut has.
She most certainly did say that......read it again.
So she admits that she doesn't have the full picture of this administration's use of interrogation techniques, and you somehow see that as evidence of her not being straight with voters? So do you think that she really does have all the details and she's just lying about it?
No, I don't have any reason to think she's lying about it......I just don't particularly trust all politicians when they tell me they need to wait to be elected before making some determination.
I find it refreshing that a politician is willing to say "I don't know yet". I have some problems with Hillary, but this answer doesn't bother me.
I'm not a fan of Hillary at all, but the fact is we don't know the extent of this administration's use of torture. So what else was she supposed to say?
I agree and have no problem with a politician saying they don't know, it is refreshing. But to frame it in a "vote for me and then trust me, I will fix it" type thing, is just vote baiting for me.
Perhaps it's just my cynical nature where politicians are concerned.....I admit that.
What HRC actually said is "No torture -- abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed," but why bother you with facts.
Did he say 'vote baiting'??? I've never heard that before. Is that where you try to convince people to vote for you? Why, why would anyone do that???
To me, the big problem with the rightwingers always making up bs about Hillary is that it's becoming impossible for actual Democrats to criticize her for very real problems. Her entire campaign is taking on a fortress menality which is very bad for Democrats and the country. I think if she gets the nomination, we get another four years of Republican White House. I would put money on it. I might actually. I've been right the last five elections. Might as well get something out of these disasters.
I think it's just that conservative nature of yours, Tommy. Ready to reach a conclusion that best conforms to ideology at the whim of a hat, it's difficult for you to imagine why someone would be fettered by such quaint restrictions as facts or knowledge.
I don't think Hill is your kind of candidate. Someone who would go with "we know where the wmd are, we just haven't found them yet." might be more your speed.
Well, Hill did seem to agree that Saddam was so darn dangerous that it would be worth invading Iraq.
She does not know yet???
Are you kidding me??
She bashes Bush left and right and she does not know yet??
If she doesn't know that the admin is torturing people, then all she has to do is a google on it and read ALL those articles and eye-witness accounts out there. Her statement just shows that's she's OK with it all. She's trying to hide behind a feigned ignorance. She's also done nothing about it, she hasn't called for the closing of Guantanamo or trials for torturing prisoners.
Redking, Hillary blows it's true. But you don't have to worry so much about her. She is not going to be president. The one formula that works for the GOP to keep the White House is to run against Hillary Clinton. Will you have as much venom for them? Are you trying to help a better Democrat get nominated? That's the only chance of changing anything big for the better in the next four years.
I ask Democrats why they won't nominate Kucinich and they say he's unelectable, so they obviously want a right-wing candidate.
I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning. The Democrats can't just elect anyone they want to the Presidency. They have to nominate someone who enough other Americans will vote for or we will keep getting right wing presidents.
Some Democrats, the Clinton Democrats, think playing the mainstream game and taking conservative stances on certain issues is what it takes to get in. That way you can at least make things better to a degree. That's the philosophy really.
If Democrats just say Kucinich rocks and nominate him, it doesn't make him president. Who else will vote for him? If you know America, it's fairly obvious that he will get beaten by Romney or whoever. So then you haven't really accomplished anything. Nominating him gets you the right wing president.
Personally I think Obama is an awesome candidate. He is a rebuke to both the right wing Republicans and the cynical Clinton philosophy. And he would actually win the election if he were nominated.
But Obama supports Israel, says he won't remove troops from Iraq, and would use force to make Iran obey us. So he's a right-winger. See? You guys keep backing right-wingers and coming up with excuses for not voting for the liberals like Kucinich. I say it again and again and again...Dems are conservatives.
You just called Obama a right winger? You should do some more research. Really. I stood about 20 feet from Barack Obama as he described how he would start drawing divisions, full divisions out of Iraq immediately. Any time you are in a fight, you can't just turn around and start running. You get shot in the back. He has a plan for ending the thing that starts as soon as he gets in office.
And you can actually believe this guy because he stood up and said we shouldn't invade in the first place. The party strategists who were worried about him winning the Senate seat in Illinois advised against taking a stance against what was a ridiculously popular invasion. His response was to go to an anti-war gathering and say we shouldn't go into Iraq and called it a "stupid war" to start. And what he showed was that you can speak the truth about stupid wars and still win elections. That's a really big deal. Someone who knows how to win by speaking the truth. He's my parent's senator now from my home state and they're damn proud of him.
What are you doing here Redking? If you're interested in politics why don't you look more stuff up? Why don't you check out some of these people? Where do you get information to base your opinions on? You seem to think that unless someone is some sort of outcast then they must just be no good whatsoever. It's good when good people succeed. And once in a blue moon they do. We wouldn't have gotten this far if they hadn't.
All the Democrats should read MMFA's piece on their homepage titled "The Progressive Majority". Why Conservative America is a myth. See, MMFA has proven that you have nothing to worry about with regard to where America stands politically. Progressives have the majority. Don't you believe MMFA, this is their PROVEN study. Conservative America is a myth. You do believe that right? There are MORE progressive votes out there than conservative votes. You guys rule.
Unless, of course, this whole study is....hmmmmm.
If Obama was anti-war, why did he vote to fund it? (Kucinich didn't). Why is he saying he will NOT remove all the troops? (Kucinich says he will). Why is he talking "tough" about Iran? (Kucinich isn't). So again, you support a right-winger over the liberal. Kucinich and Gravel are the ONLY liberals in the Dem pack, the others are conservatives who will say one thing and do another. Guess you haven't learnt that what a politician says can't be taken for face value. You have to look at their actions. And Obama is establishment, NOT change.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
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. //Hillary R. Clinton
So Tommy, what part of "No Torture --- abide by the Geneva Conventions, abide by the laws we have passed" don't you understand?
I'm sorry, you don't want to understand, it is much better when you distort her words to make you meaning!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I suggest you pop along to Specsavers, that's clearly not what she was saying. Take those blinker off and get some glasses.
...it is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing, we're getting all kinds of mixed messages. I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new President. I think once you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know....
Isn't this almost word for word the response she gave to Russert's question on pulling troops from Iraq?
but once again, she said "no torture", abide by the geneva convention. do you and tommy have a reading or comprehension problem?
I'll bet you could look that up.
HRC: Well I think I've been very clear about that too, we should not conduct or condone torture and it is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing, we're getting all kinds of mixed messages. I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new President. I think once you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know. I was very touched by the story you guys had on the front page the other day about the WWII interrogators. I mean it's not the same situation but it was a very clear rejection of what we think we know about what is going on right now but I want to know everything, and so 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.
How is she vague? No torture, that is what she says. Why do the media types continue to paint Hillary as a person who is vague?
Her vagueness is she is saying she really doesn't know what is going on until she gets in there.......doesn't that strike you as a little odd?
It seems odd to you that Hillary doesn't know what the Bush administration has been doing in secret?
I am only saying that she is asking for trust from the people once she is elected, then she can see what's going on.....that is a little presumptuous.
In what way is it presumptuous? She clearly stated her position on torture and her intention to adhere to the Geneva Convention, and then she went on to say that we can't know what this administration has really been up to until they are out of office. What exactly could she have said here to have avoided your accusations of "slick" and "presumputous"?
To state her position plainly and clearly, without appearing to ask the voters for blind trust.
Again, she did state her position clearly. And again, what exactly would you have her say in order to satisfy you?
Clams,
I have already said it's a little vote baiting for me, not a major deal, but it still is for me. Maybe "slick" was the wrong choice of words to use, my apologies for that.
How is it vote baiting to say "No torture -- abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed"
It seems to me HRC is staking out a position that's very different than the current administration's position.
Of course the mainstream media wants you to believe she's vague and doesn't answer questions.
Some people will believe them rather than believe their own eyes.
Her comments are open for interpretation... but, you're definitely reading your own message into what she's saying... And, I'm no HRC fan either.
Do you know... does anyone know... what the current admin is doing in regard to anything? That's a good question. I'd say the answer is a definitive 'no'. What I hear her saying is, until there is access...we won't know what the hell these a-holes have been doing. I don't hear her asking for anyone's 'trust' or whatever.
Again, you don't like Hillary. Fine. But, name me one candidate, in one way or another that isn't asking for their constituents' trust? That's all any candidate ever does. It's all a house of cards. HRC walks the line a little too much for my own tastes and, in situations just like this, leaves herself open for criticism. But, your interpretation is yours... there's no objective understanding here on your part.
Greek,
I never said I don't like Hillary - in fact I have said many complimentary things about her, as well as some not so complimentary things, but that's fine - I don't expect to love any of them.....so I haven't ruled out anyone, well, except Edwards.
Hillary will be the first woman President, she will win handily, yet nobody likes her from either side.
I have yet to read a single poster on here in months say "Hillary is my top choice". Maybe I missed it, they should be all over the place looking at the polls.
Bruce, you must have missed my posts. I like Clinton, She is my top choice. I have stated so before on posts.
Thank you. I did miss it because I've been looking for someone to say it for a long time. In fact, it's funny how many on here defend her on the Clinton threads while at the same time saying, "I'm no fan, but..." like they have to distance themselves from her.
Well...I say it, because I'm no real fan of HRC. But, that could change.
Also, I feel it lends more credence to the retort when one faces the standard 'You liberals get all uppity when... etc'... There's no blind allegience just cuz HRC is considered 'liberal'...
If she's a liberal, then Stalin was the Tooth Fairy.
What you perceive as "distancing" may in many cases be only indecision. In my case, I haven't made up my mind who I want to throw my support to. I have a slight preference at the moment for Obama over Clinton, but it doesn't mean I don't like her. I see things I like in Clinton, Edwards, and Dodd. At this point, I could get behind any of them as the party's choice.
Bruce, I think many here are probably more to the left of Clinton. I would not classify her as liberal so much as I would call her a moderate left leaning. I also think the perception of Clinton versus the reality is very skewed...so she does produce some knee jerk reactions by many. My sister once told me she couldn't stand Clinton. I asked her why and she said "because"...great answer right. My sister doesn't follow politics and hardly follows the news but somehow she managed to come to a conclusion about Clinton...really odd. It is amazing what power these false labels and images the media invents have on society.
You really think HRC will be elected President? Maybe - for the reasons you stated - that's a good thing... ie a centrist may bring us back to the more 'stable' days of semi-gridlock (per Tommy of old). But, I just don't think 'the people' will vote for a woman ... for President of the US. Not yet. (apologies to Tom for paraphrasing).
Greek,
It is a great question, are the voters ready for a woman president? I think Hillary does have a good chance but one thing that will sink her are these silly government handouts of $5000 or $1000, people can see right through that vote pandering and she will be portrayed as a big liberal spender if she continues.
If she campaigns as a centrist and basically doesn't cave to the "moveon.org's" of her base, she will have a good chance. As I said, I really believe she will govern like her husband, more from the center.....I am not as scared of ultra-liberal Hillary as some on the right like to scream about all the time.
I would agree with that. Although, you have more faith in regard to the average Joe's acceptance of a woman President. Perhaps, I'm over-reacting on that front. There's a ong time 'til election day yet.
'ong' - now that is open to interpretation.
CLAMS:
It seems odd to Tommy that Hillary would admit not knowing everything, because he's used to Republicans who think they DO know everything, that they are always right, that they cannot possibly make a mistake, and basically have the whole world charted out in stark BLACKS and WHITES.
Any admission that a person simply does not know all the facts is a sign of WEAKNESS and an incapability of being a LEADER, so sayeth the Rightwing.
CERTAINTY is valued. Honesty, rationality, contemplation, nuance, education and intelligence have ZERO value in rightwingland.
Sorry, can't get down with rabid partisans, such as yourself, that sheepishly and blindly ogle and drool at any Democratic candidate.......and bash and trash any opposing ideology.
What a tool......
The only one who is being a tool (at least you are acting like one on this post) here is you.
You've been given a full quote about HRC's position on torture and yet you continue to harp on the fact that she doesn't know the exact details or the extent of Bush's policy(probably because he's the one being vague and inconsistant on the issue).
If you don't trust that she will follow through on what she is quoted as saying, then fine. But don't try to raise an issue where there isn't any.
TOMMY says, “Sorry, can't get down with rabid partisans, such as yourself, that sheepishly and blindly ogle and drool at any Democratic candidate.”
RESPONSE: If I really needed to look good, I would consult a fashion expert, to tell me why my “look” was not proper, and how to change to be “in style.”
I KNOW you wouldn’t have made the assertions above, if you Tommy, an expert in posting on websites, did not have the evidence and examples to back up this claim.“ANY Democratic candidate” should give you a wealth of examples. What, to you Tommy, represents my SHEEPISH behavior towards Edwards? What have I said to indicate I BLINDLY accept anything about Joe Biden? Do you have proof that I have OGLED Chris Dodd? Where have I shown a DROOLING behavior toward Dennis Kucinich?
You MUST have examples to back up these charges, otherwise you would not have made this carefully crafted and specific assertion. Since you would avoid looking like a fool and a liar, I look forward to your presentation of these examples (so I might better myself as a person and as a website poster).
Thanks in advance for your expert help!
(the sound of crickets chirping)
Tommy?
...and, an excuse to throw the same old tired Bill C digs ('slick', etc.) Takes a lot of balls... 'glass houses' is what I say. Give me a break.
The torture is hardly secret. She's FAKING ignorance.
not really because she is clear on her position on torture.
Read it again, Tommy. She didn't say "until she gets there." She said we'd have to wait until the next president gets in. Given this junta's obsession with secrecy, that's not an unreasonable position.
From the interview [link to www.talkingpointsmemo.com] title="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/did_washington.php">transcript Sargent reported receiving from the Clinton campaign:
Now there's a reliable source!
We'll "rely" on you then to post the real transcript, but O.J. will find the real murderer before that happens.
This is a very clear case of Kornblut hearing what she wants to hear, instead of what was actually said, and printing the story she wants to print, as opposed to the real story.
When what's real doesn't fit the story angle they desire, then they just print only what fits the story angle.
No matter what HRC says the mainstream media is running the script she's vague and won't answer a question. They will give you an incomplete quote to try to prove their point.
This is not coming from a far right web site, its coming from the supposed biased liberal press.
These are the same people who anointed Giuliani "America's Mayor."
Go figure.
The reporting by the WP is correct - she is vague in her response. Read the first and last phrase.
"...we should not conduct or condone 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,' and then try to make sure we implement that.
Taken in light of her statement on another story on this site "...I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
HRC has not ruled out using torture if national security requires it. This is the situation the current administration imay be dealing with now - she just doesn't know. She has not committed one way or another - her answer is indeed vague - and rightfully so! What we come away with is a candidate who while preferring not to use "special interrogation methods" - does not rule it out. I'm OK with that.
You really are grasping at straws.
Don't you remember her response when informed that Bill Clinton condoned torture in certain circumstances?
Anyway the mainstream media is running the script that HRC is vague and won't answer questions.
Some will believe them rather than their own eyes.
Johnny - just compare the following.
...we should not conduct or condone 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,' and then try to make sure we implement that.
...we will not conduct or condone 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,' and make sure we implement that.
I think her positions are carefully scripted so not to paint her into a box. All the candidates do it.
Of course no candidate likes to be painted into a corner especially when they don't have all the facts.
But I don't think that's the point.
The point is the mainstream media would have us believe it's newsworthy. It's part of a fiction they're creating about HRC.
They are so dishonest or lazy, take your pick, they will take something out of context to prove their point when it's clear she answered the question to the best of her ability based on what she knows right now.
Let's not forget that it's not only the American people (those paying attention anyway) who are listening but the entire world.
You really do have to be careful about what you say.
I think we are in agreement - this is definately not newsworthy.
I am no fan of HRC - but I do agree she did give the best answer based on what she knows - which I also believe was the right one.
Clinton didn't rule out sending Iran an FTD birthday basket either.
Are you really a lefty trying to make conservatives look DUMB? Everything I CAN? I would think that means within the confines OF THE LAW. We have a law against torture called the Convention against torture statute and exactly WHAT would torture have to do with stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Please dont answer with some bizarre hypothetical scenrio.
If I were a multimillionaire/journalist like Russert, Wallace et al I'd be a little pissed at HRC handling five of us in a single day without breaking a sweat too.
She showed them up and they don't like it.
Consequently they'd have us believe she's vague and unresponsive in order to justify their poor performances.
Kornblut is being simply stupid. Why does she just not admit, she hates Clinton.
If Hillary is against torture, why did she keep voting to fund the torturers? So many people don't get it. She's a two-faced liar telling you what you want to hear while doing the exact opposite in front of your face and expecting you to love her anyway because she wears the Holy D behind her name. She really does think the Dem voter is a stupid herd animal. Unfortunately, most do act like that and eat up all the crap she serves out.
When the torture first became public, who kept voting to fund the war? Hillary did. 'Nuff said.
I see. The votes for the war were specifically on funding torturers, yes? I never realised. Were the number of racks, thumb screws, electrodes itemised so she could determine if it was value for money? Just how much salary is a government sponsored torturer on by the way? I have a right to know!!! Well, I don't actually as a UK citizen, but you get the drift...
To see a war crime in progress and to vote to FUND it....that makes one a war criminal, too. Hillary is a war criminal.
So the war in Iraq is a war crime? Did anyone else bar Hilary Clinton see this war crime and vote for it? Or was it just her?
It fits all the definitions of a war crime, as outlined in the Nuremburg Charter, same definitions we put the Nazis on trial for. And both parties keep voting for it over and over again. So we have an entire government of war criminals.
At least you've blamed both sides...
So what are you going to do about it? Besides mention it here in passing, that is...
I'll be voting Green and trying to save this country from the Dems and Repubs. What will YOU be doing about it?
Nothing, I'm a UK citizen...
NEW HAMPTON, Iowa -- Hillary Clinton .During the question and answer period, Randall Rolph, a retired Democratic voter from Nashua, Iowa,Why should I support your candidacy if you haven't learned from the past?" Rolph asked, referring to her 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq.
Clinton first thanked him and then countered that, "the premise of the question is wrong." So far, so good. But after offering a description of what was in the resolution, Clinton smugly and dismissively accused him of having been fed the information, saying "obviously somebody sent [it] to you."Rolph didn't let it pass. "I take exception, this is my own research...""Well, then let me finish telling you..." Clinton screamed."Nobody sent that, and I am offended that you would suggest it," Rolph snapped at her.
"It was an insult," he fumed following the event. "It was basically calling me stupid. That I can't think on my own. That I don't have the ability to research or come up with a coherent or concrete thought on my own. How dare she!"He continued, "She never did answer the question. She just, what I say is, bitch-slapped me."
The left have to be careful not too be careless about trying too out think a God fearing free people of your fine Country .
Give Love a chance! Hug a Republician and tell them that you too care for a free USA today and everday of your lives evermore.
Thanks from your careing cousins across the nothern line.