Wash. Post's Kornblut misrepresented earlier mischaracterization of Clinton torture comments
SUMMARY: Responding to a reader's question about an article she co-wrote, The Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut stated, "We asked Sen. [Hillary Rodham] Clinton what she would do, upon taking office, about special interrogation methods ... such as waterboarding or sexual humiliation. ... And her response was simply that she opposes torture, which of course is also the current policy." But according to a transcript of the interview, Clinton was not specifically asked about "waterboarding or sexual humiliation," and she did not refuse to say whether she would prohibit such measures. Indeed, she said that she would "draw a bright line and say 'No torture,' " and that she would "abide by the Geneva conventions, [and] abide by the laws we have passed."
During her October 12 washingtonpost.com "Post Politics" discussion, Washington Post staff writer Anne E. Kornblut responded to a reader who noted that Kornblut and Washington Post staff writer Dan Balz "seem to be taking some heat on your [October 10] piece on Sen. [Hillary Rodham] Clinton [D-NY] implying that she was vague about torturing prisoners." The reader continued: "Reading the complete transcript gives an entirely different impression and suggests that she's quite resolute in objecting to it -- 'bright line' and following the Geneva Convention." Kornblut responded:
Thanks so much for giving me a chance to clear this question up. We asked Sen. Clinton what she would do, upon taking office, about special interrogation methods that are currently being used -- extreme measures that the Bush administration does not necessarily classify as torture, such as waterboarding or sexual humiliation. We asked, would she immediately suspend all such measures? Conduct a 60-day review? And her response was simply that she opposes torture, which of course is also the current policy. That is why we described it as being vague -- not on torture, but on special interrogation methods.
However, Kornblut's account of the interview differs substantially from the transcript provided to blogger Greg Sargent by the Clinton campaign. According to the transcript, Clinton was not specifically asked about "waterboarding or sexual humiliation," as Kornblut suggested to the reader. Clinton was instead asked: "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?"
According to the transcript, Clinton responded:
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.
Therefore, Clinton did not refuse to say whether she would prohibit "waterboarding or sexual humiliation," as Kornblut suggested.
Moreover, contrary to Kornblut's assertion to the reader, Clinton's response to the question -- "[W]ould 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?" -- was not "simply that she opposes torture," according to the transcript. Rather, as Media Matters for America documented and the online chat participant referred to, after noting that "it is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing" and after saying that she would "draw a bright line" against torture, she elaborated, explaining that she would "abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed, and then try to make sure we implement that."
From Kornblut's October 12 "Post Politics" discussion:
Portland, Ore.: Hi Ms. Kornblut. You and your collegue Dan Balz seem to be taking some heat on your piece on Sen. Clinton implying that she was vague about torturing prisioners. Reading the complete transcript gives an entirely different impression and suggests that she's quite resolute in objecting to it -- "bright line" and following the Geneva Convention. This was not your finest hour. Your response please? Thanks.
washingtonpost.com: Clinton Cites Lessons of Partisanship (Post, Oct. 10)
Anne E. Kornblut: Thanks so much for giving me a chance to clear this question up. We asked Sen. Clinton what she would do, upon taking office, about special interrogation methods that are currently being used -- extreme measures that the Bush administration does not necessarily classify as torture, such as waterboarding or sexual humiliation. We asked, would she immediately suspend all such measures? Conduct a 60-day review? And her response was simply that she opposes torture, which of course is also the current policy. That is why we described it as being vague -- not on torture, but on special interrogation methods.
She likes to spin the truth,Kornblut has a political motive. She apparently does not like Clinton.
Isn't having to endure HRC's incessant CACKLING in and of itself a form of 'torture'?
And by the way, HRC's answer was in no way a clear response. She ducks and dodges every attempt to get at the truth. Is she really against some of the stronger methods of interrogation that is currently in use? She just keeps parroting the "we are against torture" line like a robot on autopilot.
If my good, good friends on the left are satisfied with her weak and evasive "answers", fine. But that says more about your side than it does about the truth.
Hey, did you see HRC smile while being interviewed by Olbermann last night?
Can we discuss what this means for two weeks?
BILLIYBOB says, "Is she really against some of the stronger methods of interrogation that is (sic) currently in use?"
BILL, help us out. In her explanation, but not in her original questioning of Hillary, this "reporter" suggested that waterboarding and sexual humiliation ARE currently being used, and are NOT classified as "torture" by the current administration.
Can you confirm is this is TRUE? ARE these methods currently being used? And, expand and tell us ALL of the forms of interrogation the current administration is using, so in a methodical way, we can discuss what IS and what IS NOT "torture".
I believe you may have a roadblock in providing this information, because the Bush Administration keeps whatever methods they may be using as secret as they possibly can. Fact is, you personally have NO IDEA what methods are currently under use, and neither does anybody else except those few in the White House privy to the info, and those who are PERFORMING those methods.
Hillary is quite right. A question asked about whether "current methods" would be suspended is entirely dependent on what exactly those methods ARE ... and nobody KNOWS at this point.
We only found out about waterboarding and sexual humiliation through "leaks" which made the White House furious. Are they STILL doing those things? Who the hell knows? Certainly not YOU.
What we clearly know is that Hillary will follow THE LAW, and the Bush Administration can be depended upon to thwart the law at every turn. And keep it secret for as long as possible.
We only found out about waterboarding and sexual humiliation
Since we know about waterboarding and "sexual humiliation" (which to the jihadists seems to mean simply being questioned by women...) then can you point me to the quote where HRC definitively says she would end those methods?
Sure. Just point me to the place where she was asked about waterboarding and sexual humiliation.
She was asked about torture and said "no torture". If she's asked about waterboarding, I'm betting she'll say "no waterboarding".
Even the republicans will say "no waterboarding" until the evidence comes out that they're doing it.
-. -. -. "sexual humiliation" (which to the jihadists seems to mean simply being questioned by women...)
Are you unaware, or simply choosing to ignore, allegations, backed up by photographic evidence, of prisoners (Fox the "detainee" euphemism) stripped nake and forced to perform sex acts on each other?
Along with RAPED, SODOMIZED, and MURDERED.
Did BJ surrendermonkey just use "duck", "dodge" and "evasive" to describe somebody other than herself ? Hoo-Ha!
YOU repeat the rightwing talking point about cackling as if it were anything more than a piece of Limborg brainwashing then talk about HER repeating something like a robot? Isnt it time for Rush to tell you what you think today?
Kornblut is dissembling here.
Calling HRC vague is the current fiction in the mainstream media.
She's simply following the script.
Didn't we do this yesterday. OK MMFA - one more time. This is what HRC said.
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
It is vague - it is intentionally vague. She is not going to paint herself into the corner of being called a liar if she ever needs to use "special interrogation tactics" as a president. If she wanted to say that she would never use torture under any circumstances - try this.
..we will not conduct or condone torture .....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.
HRC is an educated woman who has been in the public spotlight more than she has not been. If you don't think she has command of the language, and her positions are not carefully scripted to provide wiggle room if she needs it - then you are grossly underestimating her. As much as many on the left don't want to hear it - she shares the same position as the current administration on this one - hence her statement on not knowing what the current administration is dealing with. Her comments on this are very Presidential.
Yes, and we agreed HRC answered the question to the best of her ability based on what she knows now.
We also agreed it's not really newsworthy since that's what politicians do.
The question then becomes why did Kornblut single her out?
I contend the mainstream media is trying to paint HRC as vague in a negative way.
Kornblut isn't the only one. That's the script so far.
I don't question your contention - but I do believe her vagueness on this issue may play to her favor outside the base. We shall see.
Yes Johnny - and if you and I agreed this is not newsworthy - why is it here again? Once we've said it - there's nothing left to say! :->
I dont know what you think is vague about this.
we will not conduct or condone torture .....we have to draw a bright line and say 'No torture -- abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' she says she wont conduct or condone torture, and abide by the Geneva Convention along with the laws passed, like the Convetion against torture statute. The only reason to say this is vague is that its what is being passed around by the rightwing screechmonkey brigade.
Listening to this person is torture.
Yeah, Hillary doesn't know that we're torturing and doesn't realize that she's voted for a war that has violated the Geneva Conventions on so many levels. She's totally ignorant of the situation and totally innocent. Yeah, we believe ya, Hillary, we suuuuure do. Lying cow.
Easy big Red "Lying cow" you lost me there, I'm married to someone that is in the cow range, try "lying person", no need to get so personal. One might get the impression that you hate HRC, not just disagree with her.
I use the term in the British derogatory form, not the American.