Why did the fact that Hillary disagreed with her own stance on torture get almost no coverage?

[jenmito]

Yesterday I saw this on CNN regarding Hillary disagreeing with her husband on the torture question:

"And perhaps it obscured the fact that Senator Clinton now seems not only to disagree with her husband on the use of torture, but with herself. Last year, she was quoted in the daily news that under certain conditions, the president could OK torture, but her camp told us today after talking with experts she has determined torture should not be part of American policy."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/27/sitroom.01.html

Who really believes that a "talk with experts" made her change her mind?

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. I would believe it, since she's moved to the hated position.

That is, being against torture entirely is a position that is hated; being for torture is a popular position.

So for her to come down on the side of no torture is a move that could hurt her politically, and thus, I believe it's a legitimate move.

[ShortnFiery]

3. ...

:crazy:

[jenmito]

7. What the heck are you talking about??? Torture is NOT the popular position!

ESPECIALLY among Dems.! Please...

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. It is among the general population of this country.

Especially when hyper-conditional like the questions ask, "You know this guy has the answer and THE BOMB IS GONNA GO OFF!!!!!" blah blah blah - most of America will slip in their own drool in their hurry to torture the sonofabitch.

[jenmito]

11. I don't believe it for a second...

And she has to win the DEM. PRIMARY first, which is why I think she NOW says she's against it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. Could be - I have no idea in truth why she did it.

:shrug:

We'll never know.

Maybe she's a hideous lying bitch shrew, maybe she isn't.

And I *do* believe that most Americans would condone torture under the bizarre and fucked up circumstances in which these "debate" "questioners" seem to like to frame their "questions". For the most part, there's not a lot of ethical difference between the average American and the barbaric Muslim world.

(and before someone goes batshit on me, note that I said "barbaric Muslim" not "Muslim barbaric").

[jenmito]

17. It's strange how her "change in position" on this issue got no coverage...

So you think she said she's against torture because NOW she believes it's wrong but not a year ago?

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. It's always a possibility.

One which we'll never really know the answer to.

[jenmito]

23. Yeah, but people in the media should be TRYING to find out the answer

as to why she changed her position(s)...

[SteveM]

33. Hell, the media is about to anoint her -- don't expect any "answers."

[karynnj]

31. On what issue is it?

The NYT has had at least 3 or 4 articles extolling her consistency on Iraq vs Kerry. Ignoring that Kerry was more consistent in position , they ignore that it is 2007 - and Hillary has 2006 comments bashing the idea of a deadline. Now suddenly, she says she has lead on fighting Bush on Iraq - though she has not been a real part of the Senate leading on this - Biden is the one who can claim that he had a role in planning a way out.

[superkia]

52. I havent seen too much on the library donations either?

I saw one show that mentioned it quickly and said that Bill Clinton said that he would NOT release the information on who donated for them. If you remember in the debate, she didn't look so electable or presidential as she passed the buck and said that she was sure her husband would agree to that? I wonder why they don't want to release the names and I wonder why the person that everyone has picked as the next president of the united states, chose not to answer that in the debate. I'm sure allot of voters would like to know that information? I mean couldn't that effect policy decisions and favoritism to certain people,corporations or industries? When she didn't answer, I didn't expect them to release it but thats because I like to read between the lines and figure it may make them look bad.

I trust her less and less as time goes on, she gives me no reason to feel comfortable with her in control of our country and our military.

[jenmito]

62. You're right...

it's like Bill Clinton has the power to silence reports unfavorable to him or his wife, and the media is happy to go along with it all. Sad...

[burythehatchet]

2. triangulation

t r i a n g u l a a a a tion
is makin' me chafe
it's keepin' me c h a a a a a a a a a a a fin'

[Greyhound]

4. Triangulation, where the corporatists, the globalists, and the Republics, meet. n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

20. don't forget all subgroups of Democrats

Yeah, they are meetin' there too.
Inside the triangle offense

[jenmito]

10. Exactly...but why no coverage of it?

Why is she STILL considered a strong and steady candidate?

[Greyhound]

5. Because what gets covered is determined by corporations and she is "their girl".

Make no mistake about it, if she becomes President, the best that we can hope for is a slight backing off of the thumbscrews.

[mark414]

6. a talk with experts DID change her mind....public polling experts

:rofl:

[jenmito]

12. THAT I believe!

:hi:

[blm]

8. Why did they protect Bush from his own words throughout 2004?

Playing it up as a cute husband-wife moment when torture is such a defining issue is BEYOND NAUSEATING.

It's shameful - and Bill played along, too. DISGUSTING.

[jenmito]

13. Yes, it IS disgusting...

there IS no liberal media. If there was, this would've been covered.

[HeraldSquare212]

15. I've seen it covered

including her explanation. In fact, the NY Daily News did a little article running down issues she has flip-flopped on. A few of them were a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

[jenmito]

19. Where'd you see that? n/t

[HeraldSquare212]

NY Daily News

It was also discussed here a day or two ago.

[jenmito]

24. Do you have a link? I've been looking for the article but couldn't find it.

TIA. :)

[rodeodance]

16. Glad to see she is enlightened now.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Nothing is allowed to get in the way of the "sure-footed" and "flawless" MSM narrative

This isn't the first time (Lord knows) that she has been on two sides of the same issue. Remember it was "naive and irresponsible" for Obama to say presidents should be willing to talk to bad and evil men (even though she had criticized Bush for not being willing to do the same thing). Then it was wrong for Obama to make a blanket statement on the use of nuclear weapons (even though she had previously took them off the table re. Iran). And who can forget the war in Iraq itself, which she has alternatively supported and opposed.

This is what we're dealing with...voters will have to see through the bullshit, but that's nothing new either.

[jenmito]

22. Yup...that gets clearer and clearer every day...

no matter what she does or says it gets little coverage if any, and all of her "inconsistencies" are explained away as no big deal. The story line of her being flawless must continue.

[2rth2pwr]

25. She hasn't changed her mind on torture

“As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period. I met with those same three- and four-star retired generals, and their principal point — in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit — is that there is very little evidence that it works.”

All she is doing is speaking like a President should, ie. "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period." It will not be public policy to torture, she leaves the door slightly ajar for individual circumstances.

[jenmito]

26. But last year she said it would be ok to do it.

This year she said it wouldn't. That's not presidential. It's pandering and flip-flopping.

[2rth2pwr]

27. She is still saying that. nt

[jenmito]

28. No she's not. She now DISAGREES with her husband's position. She SAID so...

and she AGREED with his position last year.

[2rth2pwr]

29. I'll translate what she said:

"As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period."- She is stating that it cannot be the official policy of the United States, she is not saying that it won't happen.

[jenmito]

30. No need for you to translate what she said. SHE SAID she disagreed with her husband.

SHE SAID IT! But she AGREED with him last year. No translation can change that.

[wyldwolf]

35. Because Russert LIED about what Bill Clinton said

Here is the transcript of Russert’s “gotcha” question from the debate:

RUSSERT: I want to move to another subject, and this involves a comment that a guest on “Meet the Press” made, and I want to read it, as follows: “Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.”



CLINTON: As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period.

I met with those same three- and four-star retired generals, and their principal point — in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit — is that there is very little evidence that it works.

Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; making, you know, our country better respected around the world; working to have more allies.

But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it’s dangerous to go down this path.

RUSSERT: The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you.

CLINTON: Well, he’s not standing here right now. (applause)

Now, here's the MTP transcript with President Clinton:

MR. RUSSERT: As you travel around the world, what do people say about the image of the United States?

MR. CLINTON: Well, different people say different things. But I think that the real problem—it’s generally assumed, I think, in Washington, that, that the problem the American image has is that a lot of people disagree with President Bush, and it’s basically about Iraq. I, I think it’s a little more complicated than that. That is, I think it—it’s true that in the Middle East and many places out the un—in the independent, unaligned countries, they don’t necessarily agree with our Iraq policy, but I think it’s more the feeling that that’s just the most severe example of a country that is more committed to doing what it wants when it wants, and not listening to other people and working with them whenever possible. And the bigger you are and the wealthier you are and the more traditional power than you have, the more you have to be sensitive to how you’re perceived by other people, the more you at least have to want to have people think that even if you don’t agree with them, you’re kind of on their side. And I don’t think America has any significant image problems that couldn’t be turned around rather quickly with a different way of dealing with people.

I also believe that, in the Muslim world, at least, if there were a resumption of serious Israeli/Palestinian peace talks, that would help a lot, because everybody knows that in the end, that situation can’t be resolved, in all probability, unless we’re involved in a supportive way in what happens after they sign the deal.

MR. RUSSERT: What did you think when Colin Powell said, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism”?

MR. CLINTON: I think he was referring to the, the questions that have been raised about the original evidence, which plagues him and in which he was, I think, unwittingly complicit. I don’t think—I think it’s pretty clear, based on what all the people that worked for him have said. I think he was most worried about the question of torture and the conduct of the prisons at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. And of course, he weighed in in this debate about the extent to which the CIA or others could engage in conduct which clearly violates the Geneva Convention.

Now, we—as you and I talk, and we hear that they’ve reached an agreement, the senators and the White House, and I hope they have. But Colin pointed out that, you know, we’ve got soldiers all over the world. If we get a reputation for torturing people, the following bad things are going to happen: We’re as likely going to get bad information is good, just for people to just quit getting beat on; two, we’re likely to create two or three or five enemies for every one we break; and three, we make our own soldiers much more vulnerable to conduct which violates the Geneva Convention. That is, we can’t expect our friends, much less our enemies, to accept the fact that because we’re the good guys, we get to have a different standard of conduct. And most people think the definition of a good guy is someone who voluntarily observes a different standard of conduct, not someone who claims the right to do things others can’t do.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you outlaw waterboarding and sleep deprivation, loud music, all those kinds of tactics?

MR. CLINTON: Well, I—here’s what I would do. I would figure out what the, what the generally accepted definitions of the Geneva Convention are, and I would honor them. I would also talk to people who do this kind of work about what is generally most effective, and they will—they’re almost always not advocate of torture, and I wouldn’t do anything that would put our own people at risk.

Now, the thing that drives—that, that gives the president’s position a little edge is that every one of us can imagine the following scenario: We get lucky, we get the number three guy in al-Qaeda, and we know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him? But keep in mind, in 99 percent of the interrogations, you don’t know those things.

Now, it happens like even in the military regulations, in a case like that, they do have the power to use extreme force because there is an imminent threat to the United States, and then to live with the consequences. The president—they could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon or could guarantee the submission of that sort of thing ex post facto to the intelligence court, just like we do now with wire taps.

So I, I don’t think that hard case justifies the sweeping authority for waterboarding and all the other stuff that, that was sought in this legislation. And I think, you know, if that circumstance comes up—we all know what we’d do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could. But to—but to claim in advance the right to do this whenever someone takes a notion to engage in conduct that plainly violates the Geneva Convention, that, I think, is a mistake.

Bill Clinton on Meet The Press told Tim Russert that it “is a mistake” to have an advance policy of torture. Hillary said about torture “As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period.” There is no difference between Bill and Hillary Clinton on torture policy, contrary to Russert’s assertions. In fact, Hillary seemed to track closely Bill Clinton on the mistake that is torture. Hillary noted her conversations with various military generals (as did Obama), all of whom stated to her that regarding torture “there is very little evidence that it works”.

[MGKrebs]

36. Where did she say she disagreed with her husband?

What I heard her say was that she didn't discuss private conversations she has had with him, and (jokingly) would have to talk to him later.

[jenmito]

38. Wyldwolf posted the transcript.

RUSSERT: I want to move to another subject, and this involves a comment that a guest on “Meet the Press” made, and I want to read it, as follows: “Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.”



CLINTON: As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period.

I met with those same three- and four-star retired generals, and their principal point — in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit — is that there is very little evidence that it works.

Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; making, you know, our country better respected around the world; working to have more allies.

But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it’s dangerous to go down this path.

RUSSERT: The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you.

CLINTON: Well, he’s not standing here right now. (applause)

[wyldwolf]

42. She only said that because she didn't know Russert was purposely lying about what Bill Clinton said.

Looking at the Sept. 2006 MTP transcript, it is plain to see there is no difference between Bill and Hillary Clinton on torture policy,

[2rth2pwr]

46. She said: I'll talk to him later. nt

[jenmito]

49. She said that after disagreeing with him. n/t

[karynnj]

34. If that is what she is saying, it is like her husband pharsing the word, is.

Must make for interesting conversations between them where nothing has the expected meaning.

[MGKrebs]

48. I have no problem with the parsing of the word "is"

in the context. If someone asked you "is" there a relationship with someone you only see occasionally and may or may not (but probably will) see again, what is the answer?

[jenmito]

50. The answer is yes, we have a casual relationship

Easy.

[MGKrebs]

53. Well, let's get more specific.

My understanding, and recollection, is that Bill Clinton was telling the grand jury that he wasn't lying when he answered "no" when asked by others if there "is" an improper relationship. That doesn't mean there hadn't ever been one, it just meant that he wasn't lying when he said there wasn't one now.

[jenmito]

56. Could you find the quote?

TIA.

[MGKrebs]

58. This is from Slate:

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/

[jenmito]

60. Thanks...

the Lewinsky scandal is what got me interested in politics. Before it, I didn't even know Faux was a RW channel! So all Clinton had to do was say that even though he currently is NOT, he WAS having a relationship with her. I don't know why they wouldn't have followed up with, HAVE you had one in the past?" Maybe they did...I don't know exactly how it went.

[karynnj]

32. Another thing that is getting little notice is that BC is not willing to list his donors

This should be an issue, especially given that in 1996 and this year, there were problems on donors. His reason is that people did not know that they would be identified and some are Republican and could be embarrassed.

Bill Clinton's wife will be the first First Lady to run, so there will be unexpected things that need to be done. Large sums to Bill's foundation or library, could be used to gain favors - there needs to be transparency. I would imagine that they could work out a compromise for past donors - maybe choosing an amount - higher than $250 - say $5000 and have them get permission to list the name or refund the money. This is a burden, but he is asking for a unique thing.

[jenmito]

39. Yup. And it SHOULD be getting coverage and WOULD be getting coverage

if it had been anyone else.

[PurityOfEssence]

37. "News" is something unusual and worthy of note; Hillary being on both sides of something isn't news

Quite simple, actually.

Those "experts" that are referred to weren't necessarily experts on torture or the military, they may well have been experts on getting elected.

[jenmito]

40. Right. But by ignoring it she is still seen as running a flawless campaign

but the negative stories about her get no coverage at all. So the myth continues that she makes no mistakes. And I bet you're right about the "experts" she was referring to.

[ShortnFiery]

41. "Mechanical" & "duplicitous" are not synonymous with the word "flawless"

:shrug:

[jenmito]

43. I agree. But the MSM is painting her as flawless anyway...

I wish they wouldn't, but maybe they fear not getting access to Bill if she gets the nomination or even BEFORE the primaries. Just like GQ magazine that killed their story on Hillary because they'd lose access to Bill.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Since the M$M is owned by The Military Industrial Complex, we have to hope

that the people will vote for who THEY want, not who the whores and "democratic strategists" tells them too.

I have faith. At the end of the day, you have to hold out hope. :hi:

[jenmito]

45. True...

and with the crowds he's still getting he CAN still win despite the media's shilling for Hillary. Shill for Hill. Hmmm...

[ShortnFiery]

47. Somehow ... some way we have to make it "COOL" again to question authority

figures.

Having been a true "child in the 70s" I'm aghast at how docile our young people have become.

Perhaps that may change WHEN (not IF) The Draft kicks in? :evilgrin:

[jenmito]

51. That would be nice...

and I really WAS a child in the 70s. :D

[PurityOfEssence]

54. Yep. Shill for shilly-shallying Hill.

You got the dynamic down cold. The more she ignores and avoids, the more perfect she is. She's the proverbial wet paper bag of politics. She's more for this than you'll ever be and she was against it before you were. Nobody can fight the baddies like she can even though she never does. She wouldn't lay a finger on the stubble of Ahmadinijad's face, but everything's on the table even though there's no table and it's only a hypothetical anyway.

Answering questions is for peons, but she graciously answers us all the time, even though she never has. She's the best and she can win and she's the winneriest of them all even though she's only beaten two stiffs in an incredibly safe state. She was intimately involved in all the important and successful policy decisions of Bill's administration, yet wasn't responsible for the many failures like the whopper that she spearheaded, and the whole conversation is really beside the point because it's only the president who matters anyway even though she was instrumental in so many triumphs.

She's for your way and their way while being against everything they stand for as she reaches out to them with a third way and ever-ready to embrace and lead a fourth.

It's like Junior's butchering of the English language: a carefully calculated conspiracy to drive anyone with a few synapses of rationality into gibbering insanity. Aaaah, thinkin's overrated anyway. Reality? Feh.

[jenmito]

57. Thanks...

Well put. :)

[MetalCanuck]

55. I saw it lots.

[Totally Committed]

59. Because she's Hillary Clinton, gawddammit! -- She's inevitable.

Why let something that inconsequential interfere with her forced march toward the White House? Lighten up, all! --- It's only torture, and she's married to the Big Dog!

Makes ya tingly all over, doesn't it?

ETA (although it shouldn't be necessary...): :sarcasm:

TC

[jenmito]

61. Exactly...

and how sad if we let this happen. I'm sure if she DOES win everyone who voted for her will have buyer's remorse real soon.

Yeah, it wasn't necessary. :)