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.