What Did Hillary Really Say To The Washington Post About Torture?
October 10, 2007 -- 2:59 PM EST // //

Hillary is taking a pounding in the blogosphere over this passage from today's Washington Post front-page interview with her, in which she appears not to take a firm stand against torture:

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."

Kevin Drum slammed Hillary over those two grafs for a "nauseating piece of evasion." Andrew Sullivan was similarly dismayed, writing: "You knew this was coming." And Open Left's Matt Stoller also slammed Hillary, saying that "these two paragraphs get to the heart of the Clinton-era political model."

Turns out that there may be more to the story, however. The Clinton campaign has just sent over a transcript of the full question and answer that those two above WaPo paragraphs are based on. Here it is:

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.

I've bolded both the passage from the quote that WaPo used and the passage that didn't make it into the paper. As you can see, Hillary also said that we "have to draw a bright line" against torture, and "abide by the Geneva conventions." She also said we have to "try to make sure we implement that." That's clearly more specific on Hillary's part than her earlier discussion of current policies, which was included in the article.

Should that have been included, too? Should this change our conclusion about what Hillary was really saying here about torture? Discuss.

Update: A ton of reaction in the blogosphere to this transcript. Andrew Sullivan is not convinced. And neither is Mark Kleiman. Kevin Drum seems at least grateful to hear that Hillary used the phrase "bright line." Taylor Marsh says this exonerates her.

My take: There's no clear reason why WaPo shouldn't have included the extra sentence. Err on the side of more inclusion, not less, especially in a situation as sensitive as this one. Post full transcripts. There's plenty of space for this on the internets. No reason not to do it.

Update II: The Left Coaster calls this one clearly in Hillary's favor.

To reach the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

---

---