Obama's Progressive Critique

I've gotten some pushback from Obama supporters for my less-than-enthusiastic response to his foreign policy messaging in this piece. And, indeed, there's a pretty strong section of his stump speech:

I am running for President because I am sick and tired of democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking, and acting, and voting like George Bush Republicans.

When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture - because it is never ok. That's why I am in it.

This is, I think, a great criticism of Hillary Clinton and it nicely expresses the key set of reasons why I'd rather see Obama be the nominee. But that said, this is still all pretty meta -- it's talking about how he'd talk about foreign policy, or talking about which things can and can't be said about him. A primary campaign has plenty of space for that kind of thing, but in a general election one does need to directly engage with Republican arguments. Now I know that one of Obama's quirks is that, for the purposes of the primary, he does much less direct Bush-bashing than one would expect and the foreign policy section of his speech reflects that. And if that's the choice he wants to make, that's the choice he wants to make. But it still does leave me sitting here a bit nervous about what the argument will look like when he's up against a Republican.

All that said, as I've said several times before, I think he's been clearly superior to Clinton on foreign policy issues throughout the campaign.

Comments

Don't be nervous, Matt. I believe (and we'll all find out) that this coy avoidance of Bush bashing is calculated. He knows that, even if it takes until April (or even the convention) to get a nominee, the electorate, with its 30 second sound bite attention span, will tune out politics through the summer.

He's holding, I believe, for impact.

This is one smart cookie. And he's no whuss like Kerry.

Gobama!

Posted by Jim Lawrence | January 28, 2008 2:56 PM

Don't be nervous, Matt. I believe (and we'll all find out) that this coy avoidance of Bush bashing is calculated. He knows that, even if it takes until April (or even the convention) to get a nominee, the electorate, with its 30 second sound bite attention span, will tune out politics through the summer.

He's holding, I believe, for impact.

This is one smart cookie. And he's no whuss like Kerry.

Gobama!

Posted by Jim Lawrence | January 28, 2008 2:57 PM

I share your nervousness because Obama's campaign so far has been very meta and not very much about taking on the Republican spew machine and calling it what it is. I guess I'm sick of roll-over lap-dog Democrats and would like to think that the nominee will be a fighter; so far we've gotten very little of that in the primary from Obama, which is worrying because the primary is THE place for reassuring people on your side that, hey, I'm one of you. As far as "clearly superior" on foreign policy is concerned, I agree that he COULD be if he chose to emphasize his differences from HRC on Iran and Iraq, but I don't think he's made that choice. At this point, my guy Edwards seems to be going down, and I agree that Obama should be my second choice in preference to Hillary Clinton as less hawkish. I actually want to be for the guy but so far I've just got a whole lot of meta that ain't too filling.

Posted by scott | January 28, 2008 3:00 PM

ROFL! I read this on Open Left and couldn't help but snicker.

Matt's part of the "Village" and is an ivy leauge educated elitist rooting for Hillary's defeat!

So sez Matt Stoller:

----------------------

For now, Matthew Yglesias, K-Lo at NRO's the Corner,, Andrew Sullivan, and Josh Marshall are all effusively praising Obama. There's something of a DC-New York Ivy pundit crush on Obama that I'm seeing all over the place. The Village is happy as a clam to see Hillary and Bill go down. And be aware that the Village doesn't like us and wants us to shut up and stop bothering them about silly things like civil rights and the Consti-whatever it's called. And oh yeah, Iraq.

---------------------

Matt, you better start blogging about single payer some more to get back your street creds.

Seriously..wtf is going on? Why isn't Obama sufficiently liberal enough for Stoller & Krugman? He is very much to the left of Hillary on quite a few issues.

Matter of fact, Hillary even has attacked him as being "too liberal".

-Mike

Posted by mike | January 28, 2008 3:09 PM

I've asked this before, but why on earth would the Democrats once again nominate someone who voted for this senseless, endless war in Iraq?

Posted by Traven | January 28, 2008 3:14 PM

Mike,

I have my occasional beefs with MY, but his commentary has far more substance and analytical rigor than Stoller's stuff, which is considerably more impressionistic and fevered. At Open Left, I pay more attention to Chris Bowers or Paul Rosenberg (who actually seems to know history!) than Stoller.

Posted by scott | January 28, 2008 3:15 PM

When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq;

Only because you weren't even a Senator at the time, Mr Obama. You yourself have said you might have voted for the war if you had been in the Senate at the time.

And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture - because it is never ok. That's why I am in it.

But these are weasel words, Mr Obama. What does "ok for America to torture" mean, exactly? It sounds to me like all you're saying is that you oppose torture as a matter of national policy. But that's not the hard question. Are you willing to state clearly and publicly that as president you will never, under any circumstances that may arise--a "ticking time bomb" situation of imminent nuclear attack, or any other conceivable threat--that you will never order, authorize, allow or support the use of waterboarding or any other form of torture for the purpose of extracting intelligence information to avert a catastrophe, or for any other purpose? What is your answer, Mr Obama?

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 3:15 PM

Scott,

I greatly enjoy the blog too which is why I couldn't help but laugh at Stoller's post.

-Mike

Posted by Mike | January 28, 2008 3:20 PM

Mixner,

Are you, in fact, Charles Krauthammer? Do you believe it's useful to dwell on hypotheticals that posit a deeply unlikely--indeed, well nigh impossible--set of facts?

If you had a man in custody who you knew for a fact: (a) if and only if you tortured him, would avert the destruction of New York City, but (b) if and only if you did not torture him, would discover cheap and effective cures for AIDS and cancer. . . would you torture him?

What is your answer, Mr. Mixner?

Posted by southpaw | January 28, 2008 3:26 PM

When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture...

Since we're making lists, let's not forget the Clintons' inhuman Iraq sanctions regime, which killed half a million innocent kids, and Operation Desert Fox ("MISSION: To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction."), which got Monica Lewinsky off the front page.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 28, 2008 3:29 PM

When it mattered how did Obama vote differently. He was also for single payer insurance, he was against the war (when it did not matter), he voted for all the Bush fund the war bills, and he would love to start a war with Pakistan to prove that he is one of the Republicans. Give me a break, the guy is playing all of you like a fiddle.

You guys buy all the bravado, yet when you look at what he did it's the opposite. WHy did he not speak up against Patriot Act?

UNBELIEVABLE. If he does win, you will all become apologists finding reasons why what he does, against our interests, is a good thing.

Well now that TPM, KOS and the other boys will feel as kingmakers they will be the system.

Posted by stellaa | January 28, 2008 3:31 PM

So, Southpaw, you have this Islamoid who seeks to blow up NYC but is also a great genius who will cure AIDs and cancer after he is finished slaghtering infidels but who will not if we interrogate him because he will be offended?

What...a ....mindbloggling stupid...conjectual scenario!

And if true, then you of course go ahead and torture the man to get the cure for AIDs and cancer out of them after you have saved millions of innocent Westerners in cities.

As a matter-of-fact, maybe all radical Islamoids should be tortured in the hopes we could extract a cure for AIDs and cancer out of them.

And give each one a huge, HIV-positive animal rapist as a cellmate to further incentivize them.

Posted by chris ford | January 28, 2008 3:35 PM

Mr Yglesias, there must be many of us. You have expressed in an exquisitely clear way my own precise position on Obama and Clinton with regard to foreign policy.

Posted by della Rovere | January 28, 2008 3:43 PM

Matt-You're missing Obama's main theme...what we need to quit doing is allowing the hard right Reps to define the conversation.

Why is it that every doubt I see about Obama is how he'll react to the Reps, when what he's saying is reject the hard right Reps narrative and go forward with our own?

Good grief...if he has a strength it is that he can change the conversation, not cede to it.

Pretty simple, really.

.
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 28, 2008 3:45 PM

What...a ....mindbloggling stupid...conjectual scenario!

Agreed. Just about as mindbogglingly stupid as thinking some Kiefer Sutherland type is going to collar an "Islamoid" on 2nd Av and 26th who he knows is about to blow up the city and who we're sure has the information necessary to prevent that if only we simulate his drowning. It's just not a scenario we're ever going to face. I give you Michael Kinsley:

Questions like these have been pondered and disputed since the invention of the college dorm, but rarely, until the past couple of weeks, unstoned.

[. . .]

Of course a million deaths is hard to shrug off as a price worth paying for the principle that we don't torture people. But college dorm what-ifs like this one share a flaw: They posit certainty (about what you know and what will happen if you do this or that). And uncertainty is not only much more common in real life: It is the generally unspoken assumption behind civil liberties, rules of criminal procedure, and much else that conservatives find sentimental and irritating.

Sure, if we could know the present and predict the future with certainty, we could torture only people who deserve it. Not just that: We could go door-to-door killing people before they kill others. We could lock up innocent people who would otherwise be involved in fatal traffic accidents. Civil libertarians like to believe that criminals get their Miranda warnings and dissidents enjoy freedom of speech because human rights are universal. But if we knew for sure that a newspaper column by Charles Krauthammer would lead—even by a chain of events he never intended and bore no responsibility for—to World War II, wouldn't we be nuts not to censor it? Universal human rights would make no sense in a world where everything was known and certain.

Posted by southpaw | January 28, 2008 3:46 PM

"Only because you weren't even a Senator at the time, Mr Obama. You yourself have said you might have voted for the war if you had been in the Senate at the time."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN30M6StFfk&feature=related

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 3:48 PM

southpaw,

Do you believe it's useful to dwell on hypotheticals that posit a deeply unlikely--indeed, well nigh impossible--set of facts?

I don't believe the type of scenario I described is "well nigh impossible." I also don't think we should "dwell" on it. But asking presidential candidates this kind of question I described in order to clarify their position on torture--which, if you recall, the UN Convention defines as the infliction merely of "severe pain or suffering"--is entirely appropriate. If a candidate would refuse to allow any use of "severe pain or suffering" even to avert an imminent nuclear catastrophe, I absolutely want to know that. And I think most other Americans would too.

If you had a man in custody who you knew for a fact: (a) if and only if you tortured him, would avert the destruction of New York City,

I couldn't know that for a fact. Your premise is false.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 3:48 PM

"never" is a weasel word? Was he supposed to say "never with bells on it?"

Posted by Lon | January 28, 2008 3:49 PM

If a candidate would refuse to allow any use of "severe pain or suffering" even to avert an imminent nuclear catastrophe, I absolutely want to know that. And I think most other Americans would too.

If you had a man in custody who you knew for a fact: (a) if and only if you tortured him, would avert the destruction of New York City,

I couldn't know that for a fact. Your premise is false.

How is my false premise different from your false premise?

Posted by southpaw | January 28, 2008 3:58 PM

> How is my false premise different from
> your false premise?

What if the terrorist (suspect!) had a sensor in his nostril that detected lack of oxygen and presence of excess water, so that when you waterboarded him to learn the location of the nuke you triggered the sensor and set the nuke off?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 28, 2008 4:01 PM

southpaw,

Your Kinsley quote is irrelevant. I'm not positing certainty. We could never be certain that torturing someone would avert a nuclear catastrophe. Just as we can never be certain that aerial bombing raids that kill civilians will achieve their military objective. That doesn't mean we should never do either of those things. In fact, both World Wars and all modern wars have involved aerial bombing, for uncertain military objectives, that killed civilians.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 4:01 PM

"WHy did he not speak up against Patriot Act?"

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051215-senate_floor_st/

To this date, I can honestly say that there's not a single argument against Barack Obama that I have yet heard that doesn't also apply at least equally to the other Democrats.

Well, except that whole "he's black" thing.

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 4:06 PM

How is my false premise different from your false premise?

I told you why your premise is false. My premise is not false. I didn't say we "know for a fact" that the torture would prevent the catastrophe.

"never" is a weasel word?

No, "ok for America to torture" are the weasel words.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 4:06 PM

...He's holding, I believe, for impact....And he's no whuss like Kerry. Posted by Jim Lawrence

What makes you so sure of that?

His past writings, his campaign people, all seem so far to me to believe that postitive inspiring message is the way to go to both win the primary and to win the general and govern. Nearly everything he does and says seems keyed to downplaying "fighting."

Many of his internet supporters are different in that regard, true. But he has gone on record at DKos and in some interviews to say he doesn't think the way they do, he even said at DKos that most Americans do not think Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced and do not think big corporations are evil, that that kind of rhetoric is not the way the Democratic party should go--the title is important here as to his thinking: Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party.

Elsewhere we see evidence that he wants to bring "community organizing" to the presidency somehow, that if he just gets enough people on his side, he won't have to "fight".

He has a habit of trying to find something good in just about anyone (whether it's Ronald Reagan or Donnie McClurkin.) It's almost as if he is trying to bring the principles of Nonviolence to American politics.

So far from what I have seen, I think anyone who is expecting overt fighting back from him, rather than cool calculations about keeping positive message in the forefront, might be in a rude surprise. I have a hard time, for example, visualizing him "blasting" anyone. Any counter measures will be behind the scenes Chicago politics style, protecting a hard won kumbaya we can all get along, or "wuss" if you prefer, public image.

His more triangulating social Security stuff, for example, seems to me to want to placate some youth vote who have bought into worries about the system. His health care plan is less aggressive than the other two on forcing anything, I see this as to trying to get a bigger constituency for it.

Yglesias is concerned that he more specifically directly engage with Republican arguments. I get the sense he wants to do that as little as possible, he'd rather divert anything like that if possible, he'd rather reframe and get some of those Republicans on his side, he's not into the old adverserial red v. blue at all, it's all "the power of positive thinking."

Posted by artappraiser | January 28, 2008 4:06 PM

Chris,

I'm not sure what relevance you think those youtube links have to my point you're contesting. See this Boston Globe article: Obama's record shows caution, nuance on Iraq. Money quote:

According to the Post, her husband quoted Obama as saying "I'm not sure" when he was asked how he would have voted on the 2002 war resolution. A spokesman for the former president declined to comment, and the public record could not verify the quote attributed to Obama, who has consistently said that he would have voted no based on what he knew at the time. But Obama has often added a caveat: He did not have access to the classified intelligence that members of Congress saw, and he might have voted differently if he had.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 4:11 PM

Second link for my above comment:
Clinton, Obama, MLK: Leadership for Change?
By Marshall Ganz

Now Clinton wants us to hear what she will do “for” us, what “she” will deliver – much as a lawyer, drawing strength not from her client but from her expertise, argues a case. Obama, on the other hand, urges people to join with him in acting for themselves and each other.

There's the anti-adversersial theme, make love not war, we don't need to fight Republicans.

Posted by artappraiser | January 28, 2008 4:14 PM

Mixner, what the heck do you mean by "weasel words"? I mean: "It sounds to me like all you're saying is that you oppose torture as a matter of national policy"? You're questioning a pretty clear statement and then coloring it with your own totally unfounded conjecture.

I mean, it sounds to me like he's saying that in our country -- including all of the people in or belonging to or acting under sanction from our country -- it's not OK to torture. It sounds that way to me because that is what he said.

And thanks, Chris, for posting that link. Here's another, stellaa:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/clinton-slams-o.html

Obama not only spoke out against the Patriot Act, but cosponsored a bill with stronger checks and balances. Ultimately, he -- with the vast majority of our senators, including Clinton and Edwards -- did reauthorize it, but only after he'd helped disable some of the more dangerous aspects of it. I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the Patriot Act, just that it's not something to single out Obama over.

Posted by moff | January 28, 2008 4:25 PM

I mean, it sounds to me like he's saying that in our country -- including all of the people in or belonging to or acting under sanction from our country -- it's not OK to torture.

It doesn't sound like that to me. If that's what he meant, his claim is just utter nonsense. Many Americans clearly do believe it's "ok to torture"--meaning that they believe torture is justifiable--under certain conditions.

But the way to clarify what he meant would be to ask him the question I described.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 4:37 PM

I'm not positing certainty. We could never be certain that torturing someone would avert a nuclear catastrophe.

Of course, it's more than that. For example, we can never be certain that there's going to be a nuclear catastrophe, we can never be certain that such a thing is imminent, and we can never be certain that people in our custody are in any way culpable or informed. So let's return to your hypothetical:

Are you willing to state clearly and publicly that as president you will never, under any circumstances that may arise--a "ticking time bomb" situation of imminent nuclear attack, or any other conceivable threat--that you will never order, authorize, allow or support the use of waterboarding or any other form of torture for the purpose of extracting intelligence information to avert a catastrophe, or for any other purpose?

Revised for the quality of actual knowledge we might hope to attain, I think it would probably read:

Are you willing to state clearly and publicly that as president you will never, whatever suspicions may arise--for instance, reports of a "ticking time bomb" possibly involving nuclear material, or any other conceivable threat--that you will never order, authorize, allow or support the use of waterboarding or any other form of torture on persons in United States custody who may or may not be terrorists in the hopes of possibly extracting intelligence information, which, if credible, might stand some chance of averting the feared catastrophe, or for any other purpose?

As Kinsley said, we don't lean toward respecting human rights in such situations because we like terrorists or wish to court disaster. We lean toward respecting human rights because experience teaches us to doubt the quality of our own knowledge. We don't just doubt our ability to predict the potential effects of our own actions; we are also skeptical about our ability to rapidly gather accurate information about a crisis and the persons involved.

Posted by southpaw | January 28, 2008 4:37 PM

You yourself have said you might have voted for the war if you had been in the Senate at the time.

I'd like to hear of even one person in the world who has been persuaded by this infantile attempt to twist a gracious remark into a "gotcha" quote. If you think the Clintons' dishonest campaiging hasn't backfired enough, keep trying with that one.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 28, 2008 4:37 PM

There's the anti-adversersial theme, make love not war, we don't need to fight Republicans."

I think that's largely true, artappraiser, and that's a big part of why I'm supporting him. This meme I keep hearing about whether Obama's truly doing enough for the Democratic party, whether he's a "real" enough Democrat, is bizarre to me, but based on my friends and me, I think it's connected to why he's doing so well with younger voters.

I'm 31. I don't care about the Democratic party per se. I don't care about the GOP per se. I never have, because since I was old enough to have any political understanding, it's seemed to me that having only these two choices deeply hurts our ability to engage in rational, nuanced decision-making. I mean, I'm for gay rights, I'm a feminist, and I want universal health care, but I also want less government in many other aspects of my life and I'm not really comfortable with affirmative action. I'm pro-choice as a matter of practicality and fairness, and because I believe firmly in the separation of church and state, but my religious beliefs do tell me abortion is wrong.

Now, I'm sure I have some philosophical differences with Obama, but he's pushing what's the most important point to me: that we really do have to move past partisan bickering and start being more open to compromise if anything lasting is going to get done, and if the quote-unquote culture war is going to end. (It's surely not going to end because suddenly one side will win!) As far as his being unable to fight, I'm not convinced. I just get the impression that he's genuinely committed to keeping it positive until the chips are down. The folks who say he's seemed weak because he's not hitting Clinton back harder ought to remember that just about every one of the religious and philosophical leaders we revere in this country made it pretty clear that not hitting back is often what's harder to do.

Posted by moff | January 28, 2008 4:41 PM

When it comes right down to it BHO is all talk.

He can give a good speach but that is about how he was once against the war, but when he had a chance to do anything about it he punted.

Posted by ken | January 28, 2008 4:44 PM

southpaw,

You can ask Obama your version of the question. I want him to be asked mine.

And yes, we do, and should, "lean towards" not using torture. That obviously doesn't mean that we should never use it at all, never ever ever, under any circumstances that may arise. If Obama absolutely opposes the use of torture--"severe pain or suffering"--under any and all circumstances, no matter what's at stake, I want to know that.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 4:45 PM

In fact, both World Wars and all modern wars have involved aerial bombing, for uncertain military objectives, that killed civilians.

Ah, words that come easily to our small child, for whom civilian bombardment means 'what we do to them'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 28, 2008 4:47 PM

Mixner, you're honestly not making any sense, and I can't tell if you're being obtuse or are just confused. Obviously, some Americans believe torture is OK. But Obama, in the quote you posted, is saying "It is never OK [for America to torture]." There's nothing weaselly about that. Speaking as a professional copy editor who has scored as high as one possibly can on at least two of the major college-entrance language-aptitude tests, I can guarantee you that, by definition, "never" encompasses even such scenarios as a ticking time bomb, as well as all other possible scenarios. That is what "never" means. It is not up for debate.

Now whether Obama means it we can't know for sure. But I have no reason to believe he doesn't.

Posted by moff | January 28, 2008 4:52 PM

I never said "civilian bombardment." I said "aerial bombing that killed civilians."

The U.S. and its allies killed hundreds of thousands or millions of German and Japanese civilians through aerial bombing during WWII. In it least some cases of such bombings, I think civilian deaths were almost certainly intended (the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo; the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). But even in cases where civilian deaths were not intended, the Allies knew that such deaths were an inevitable effect of the bombings.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 4:58 PM

That obviously doesn't mean that we should never use it at all, never ever ever, under any circumstances that may arise. If Obama absolutely opposes the use of torture--"severe pain or suffering"--under any and all circumstances, no matter what's at stake, I want to know that.

See, you're chasing an ontological point with pretty much no relevance to the world we live in. What Obama's addressing is the idea that it is not okay to torture people we capture who we think are probably associates of terrorists and might possibly know something about their nugatory plans (or maybe not, but why take a chance!).

That has the virtue of being something the US appears to have actually done as a matter of policy. In other words, it's quite relevant to the real world, and to chide Obama for using clear political language to address the wrongness of that actually existing policy strikes me as unfathomably daft.

Posted by southpaw | January 28, 2008 4:59 PM

No, southpaw, I'm not chasing an ontological anything. I'm asking a question. I think it's pretty clear that Obama opposes torture as a matter of policy. But it's not at all clear that he would refuse to allow or authorize torture--the infliction of "severe pain or suffering"--for purposes of interrogation to avert a catastrophe in any and every "ticking time bomb" situation that might arise. Hence the question.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 5:09 PM

@southpaw: Exactly. And thank you for using the phrase "unfathomably daft," which sums things up nicely.

This ticking-time-bomb BS is unbelievable -- a talking point largely inspired by a TV show. If this country, or any country, ever finds itself in a situation where a WMD is hidden somewhere and capturing one of the perpetrators, tying him to a chair, and threatening and beating him is the only way to find it in time, I will eat my hat.(And as I've told people before, it's a chocolate hat, but I don't need the calories.) We may as well be arguing about how the government needs to switch its computers over to Macs because they're the only machines that can effectively interface with and transmit viruses to alien motherships.

Posted by moff | January 28, 2008 5:13 PM

To those who say that Obama said that he didn't know how he would have voted had he had access to the intelligence reports:

Wasn't this in the context of the 04' Presidential campaign? John Kerry and John Edwards had voted "Yes" on the war resolution, and since Obama clearly and unambiguously opposed the war, the media decided to ask him what he thought of the way the Democratic ticket voted on Iraq.

Obama decided rightly to show support for the ticket, since defeating George W. Bush was the imperative at the time. Of course it would have been much easier had the Democrats in Congress just opposed the war the way Obama did, then no one would have been put into that awkward position.

If Hillary wants to say now that her vote was not a vote for war, but instead was to give the Bush Administration the leverage in needed to get inspectors into Iraq, fine. The issue then becomes, why did she trust them to that extent? It was almost universally understood at the time that a "yes" vote would give George W. what he needed to go to war. Even if they assured her they would act judiciously and they didn't, it makes you wonder if her experience served her well in that period, since the Bush administration seemed untrustworthy to many of us even then.

As far as Obama opposing the war and then supporting it when he got to the Senate, that's just downright ridiculous. It was silly for the Dems to support the war in the first place, but it was also silly to cave in to pressure from MoveOn.org and vote against appropriations for the war. Once the war starts, it becomes a matter of providing the soldiers what they need to have success, at least early on in the war, even if Haliburton gets a couple of giveaways. The American people are only going to see a "no" vote on war appropriations, they won't understand anything else. So Obama did exactly the right thing by opposing the war, then supporting funding bills.

And on the intelligence, we all remember Scott Ridder right? He was a person who was in a position to know some things, and he said loudly and clearly that the case against Saddam Hussein (on WMD) was being trumped up and exaggerated. Also, on the intelligence reports that the public has had access to, we can see that though there were ominous things in them, there were also many caveats and qualifications which tempered the alarming tidbits in the report.

Any way you slice it, Barack Obama is better on the war than Hillary. At least John Edwards has apologized for his vote. Hillary Clinton is unrepentant, and supported the Bush Administration on the Iran vote.

I just don't see any perspective which makes Clinton better on this.

Posted by Jay J | January 28, 2008 5:15 PM

@Mixner: What word is more clear than NEVER???

Say you're suspicious of the guy, if you will, say that you think he's lying, but don't accuse him of using "weasel words." "Never" has a meaning, and it's an absolute meaning. "Never" does not mean "mostly, except for under certain circumstances."

Posted by moff | January 28, 2008 5:19 PM

If this country, or any country, ever finds itself in a situation where a WMD is hidden somewhere and capturing one of the perpetrators, tying him to a chair, and threatening and beating him is the only way to find it in time, I will eat my hat.

What evidence could persuade you that it is "the only way to find it in time?"

What word is more clear than NEVER???

Why do you keep making the same point that I've already addressed? The issue is not the meaning of the word "never." I agree that's pretty clear. The issue is the meaning of the phrase "ok for America to torture." If you think that meaning is absolutely clear, fine. I don't. That's why I'd like Obama to answer my question.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 5:30 PM

Sounds similar to "I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say 'No' to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance."

Until Obama's actions match his rhetoric I will remain skeptical.

Posted by unimpressed | January 28, 2008 5:37 PM

Let Mixner ask his "ticking time bomb" question if he wants to. Hopefully, Obama can explain the reasons why it's a distorted and misleading hypothetical. That's how the Q-and-A process should work.

Posted by Peter H | January 28, 2008 5:38 PM

This whole conversation about torture is stupid. Since McCain's the likely nominee, and since he opposes torture, this discussion won't even figure in the general election. But speaking of weasel words, Google "Hillary, torture" to see how she sort of, kind of, approves of it, you know, in the right circumstances.

Seriously. If it's OK to torture to prevent an "imminent attack", why is it not OK to torture to prevent a liquor store robbery that may result in a murder? How many people's lives have to be on the line before we OK torture? Are we going to have regulations about when torture is OK? Are interrogators going to have to check them before they go ahead an torture? By that time, won't the "imminent attack" -- that occurs only in the movies -- have already taken place?

Posted by Traven | January 28, 2008 5:40 PM

@Mixner: My sincere apologies. I didn't read closely enough and missed your earlier comment. I do think "OK for America to torture" is equally clear in this context -- not a phrasing you'd use in a legal contract, but since the quote comes from the middle of a speech, perfectly understandable. "OK" means "acceptable" or "right" here, and thus, what Obama said was "It's never acceptable or right for America to torture."

I guess I can see how you might say that "OK" is slangy and vague in some sense, but frankly, speaking as a professional nitpicker, I think that's more than a bit overboard. I mean, turn the question around -- "Mr. Obama, is it OK for America to torture if [ticking time bomb or such-and-such]?" -- and the answer still comes out "Never." Again, you can say you want him grilled more closely on his stance on torture, and if he wavers then, you can surely accuse him of weaseling. But to suggest that this particular quote, in this particular context, indicates that he thinks torture is acceptable under some circumstances is ridiculous.

As for your question about evidence, my point is simply that the ticking-time-bomb scenario is an excellent plot point, a compelling storytelling device -- but so unlikely a scenario that the fact that it's been bandied about as the object of serious debate as much as it has astonishes me.

Posted by moff | January 28, 2008 5:49 PM

What is your answer, Mr Obama?

Are you deaf, sir? I said: it is never ok.

What I meant by that is: Torture is never ok

Shall I repeat it one more time?

Posted by Obama | January 28, 2008 5:51 PM

And our adolescent McArdle fanboi misses the point, to no-one's surprise.

we can never be certain that aerial bombing raids that kill civilians will achieve their military objective. That doesn't mean we should never do either of those things.

The phrase "What Do You Mean 'We,' Paleface?" comes to mind. When someone foreign brings a bundle of used notes to your door with a brief apology for bombing your family to bits, come back to us.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 28, 2008 6:05 PM

Didn't Hillary say recently in a debate, and in a letter, that as a matter of policy, that torture is can never be OK, but before that, she granted an exception for the ticking time-bomb?

Isn't that what Obama is referring to when he references torture in his speech?

If Obama is facing a person who says that torture is OK in some circumstances, like in the ticking time-bomb situation, then OK, fire away.

Hillary used to be such a person.

But she sent a letter in the last several months saying it should never be the policy of the US to torture.

http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-torture

She also said in a debate that it can never be US policy,

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/005085.php

John McCain has also been very clear about this, so what's the issue?

Obama is pointing out that Hillary has changed her position recently. If you're concerned about the ticking time-bomb scenario, then Hillary should be asked the same question right?

Even if she one time had a clear position on the time-bomb scenario... she since seems to have adopted a position just like Obama's.

Posted by Jay J | January 28, 2008 6:08 PM

Peter H,

Hopefully, Obama can explain the reasons why it's a distorted and misleading hypothetical.

Ah, right. A "distorted" hypothetical, you say. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Waving your hand, declaring the question a distraction, and refusing to answer it is certainly one possible response. I doubt it's likely to impress many people, though.

It's interesting that you link to a post at Jack Balkin's blog. One of the contributors to that blog, Sanford Levinson, is the editor of Torture: A Collection, a book of essays about torture in which the ticking time bomb scenario features prominently. But, no doubt, you'll declare that book a "distortion," too.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 6:13 PM

Obama is clearly not a triangulating neocon-lite. Moreover, he's a stronger candidate against McCain or Romney in the general than Billary. And, unlike Kerry- he's not inclined to be a feckless punching bag for the inevitable Republican smear machine. If they try to paint him as a Farrakhan-loving "Hussein" al Queda sympathizer- I have confidence he'll be able to rise above it. He's a good candidate and he can win.

Posted by Trevor | January 28, 2008 6:16 PM

Trevor,

I feel compelled to add,

John Kerry was a feckless punching bag in the 04 campaign.

Some of us take to calling John Kerry a "whuss" but in fact he is a heroic guy who fought valiantly and is probably the only major Presidential candidate in a while to have physically taken someone's life.

But as a candidate, yes, he was a total weakling...

Not trying to nit-pick, I just wanted to add...

Posted by Jay J | January 28, 2008 6:24 PM

As for your question about evidence, my point is simply that the ticking-time-bomb scenario is an excellent plot point, a compelling storytelling device -- but so unlikely a scenario that the fact that it's been bandied about as the object of serious debate as much as it has astonishes me.

This is a really stupid argument. The fact that a scenario is very unlikely obviously doesn't mean it shouldn't be seriously debated. A nuclear missile attack on the United States is very unlikely. A repeat of the 9/11 hijackings is very unlikely. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seriously debate our responses to those unlikely scenarios.

And you've evaded the question. You suggested that you could be persuaded that torture (or, more precisely, "capturing one of the perpetrators, tying him to a chair, and threatening and beating him") was the only way to find a hidden WMD. And you said that if you were so persuaded you would eat your hat. This obviously raises the question of what evidence you would find persuasive.

The phrase "What Do You Mean 'We,' Paleface?" comes to mind.

The United States. The U.S. president. Congress.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 6:27 PM

@Mixner: Honey, changing the subject to a book written by someone who happens to contribute to a blog containing a post that was linked to is, in fact, an actual distraction, and also unlikely to impress anyone. You must be trolling, huh?

Go read the other post that Peter linked to now (linked again here for your convenience) and it will be pretty clear what a "distorted and misleading hypothetical" is: a suggested scenario whose probability of actually taking place has been vastly misrepresented.

Posted by moff | January 28, 2008 6:30 PM

This is a really stupid argument.

Oh, you're one to talk:

It's interesting that you link to a post at Jack Balkin's blog. One of the contributors to that blog, Sanford Levinson, is the editor of Torture: A Collection, a book of essays about torture in which the ticking time bomb scenario features prominently. But, no doubt, you'll declare that book a "distortion," too.

Posted by southpaw | January 28, 2008 6:32 PM

@Mixner: I have not been persuaded that any such ticking-time-bomb scenario is at all likely or within the realm of possibility. I apologize for confusing you with my use of a complex piece of vernacular ("I'll eat my hat") typically employed only by such highly capable philosophical minds as Larry, Moe, Curly, and even Shemp, as well as children's cartoon characters.

Anyway, to clarify: "I'll eat my hat" means "I don't think it's ever going to happen." Or in this case, "While I admit that is within the realm of the physically possible for such a ticking-time-bomb scenario to take place -- i.e., none of the laws of thermodynamics would prevent the necessary entities and their constituent atoms from being in the appropriate places at the appropriate times -- the actual probability of its occurring is so infinitesimal as for it to be a waste of time, or at best masturbatory, to dwell on the consequences."

A nuclear missile attack on the U.S. is unlikely, yes. But it is orders of magnitude likelier than (1) a group of terrorists laying hands on a WMD made of highly controlled substances and hiding it somewhere; (2) a U.S. intelligence team learning about these terrorists in the short window of time between the bomb's being set and going off, and then (3) apprehending one of them in that short window; and (4) the notion that threatening to hurt or kill this person, who comes from a culture where suicide-bombing is a regular mode of attack, would yield the necessary information in time.

Anyway, by your "logic," if likelihood of occurrence has no bearing on whether we should discuss something or not, why are we discussing the ticking time bomb instead of what we're going to do if al-Qaeda comes up with a plan to poison our nation's children by injecting cyanide into Reese's Peanut Butter Cups? It's very unlikely, I will grant you, but oughtn't we discuss it and every other possible scenario we can dream up?

Posted by moff | January 28, 2008 6:48 PM

Quit letting the hard right set the conversation.

Present and defend your case of what we stand for as a nation.

To engage in right wing hypotheticals is allowing them to set and drive the agenda.

That is exactly obama's premise. Stop playing defense and start playing offense.

.
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 28, 2008 6:52 PM

If you're concerned about the ticking time-bomb scenario, then Hillary should be asked the same question right?

Absolutely. Every candidate should be asked it. Hillary stated her position as:

In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable,"

She thinks the use of torture in exceptional circumstances should be a matter of presidential discretion, not "policy." I'll bet Obama believes the same thing.

Realistically, no president is going to let millions of Americans die in a nuclear attack for the sake of "policy." And no president who saves millions of Americans from a nuclear attack is ever going to be prosecuted for "illegal" torture. He'd be a hero.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 6:56 PM

I'll admit I don't watch much TV these days, so I've probably missed most of Obama's "inspirationalist" rhetoric.

But I have my doubts about the effectiveness of such a "post-ideological" political framework. It reminds a bit of another relatively untested candidate who was once running for highest office.

I think he was called "The Iron Duke" before Lee Atwater scraped some bark off him...

Posted by RKU | January 28, 2008 7:01 PM

Realistically, no president is going to let millions of Americans die in a nuclear attack for the sake of "policy." And no president who saves millions of Americans from a nuclear attack is ever going to be prosecuted for "illegal" torture. He'd be a hero.

Realistically, no president who jumps all the way over the White House is going to be that badly injured when he lands. He'd clearly be an excellent physical specimen, and besides, the grass on the South Lawn is quite soft and forgiving.

Posted by southpaw | January 28, 2008 7:01 PM

moff,

A nuclear missile attack on the U.S. is unlikely, yes. But it is orders of magnitude likelier than [description of "ticking time bomb" scenario]

And you know this, how? Do please show me how your produced your probability estimates. I'm especially interested in the "orders of magnitude" bit.

Anyway, by your "logic," if likelihood of occurrence has no bearing on whether we should discuss something or not, why are we discussing the ticking time bomb instead of what we're going to do if al-Qaeda comes up with a plan to poison our nation's children by injecting cyanide into Reese's Peanut Butter Cups?

I never said "likelihood of occurrence has no bearing on whether we should discuss something." I said that just because something is very unlikely doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it.

Your hypothetical makes my point. Or do you really believe we just shouldn't discuss the issue of protecting our food supply from poisoning by terrorists?

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 7:06 PM

moff,

@Mixner: Honey, changing the subject to a book written by someone who happens to contribute to a blog containing a post that was linked to is, in fact, an actual distraction, and also unlikely to impress anyone.

Sugar, the book in question is about torture, and the ticking time bomb scenario is a central point of discussion in the book.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 7:09 PM

@southpaw: It's kind of awesome to imagine it all playing out, though. The terrorist is in custody. The president travels out personally to interrogate him and finally, in a rage, begins pummeling his swarthy face into a bloody pulp. The terrorist cries out for mercy: "I'll tell you! I'll tell you! You're right! I hated America so much I was willing to blow up eight million people, but now you're hurting me, and I must give in!"

They uncover the bomb and clip the wires -- the counter reads "00:01." And the next day, a giant ticker-tape parade and award ceremony. "PRESIDENT HERO" reads the 120-point banner headline on the front page of The New York Times. America is a better place now, thanks to torture.

Posted by moff | January 28, 2008 7:11 PM

Matt,

I think part of Obama's appeal that he is looking right over the heads of the Republicans, refusing to confront their bullshit talking points, and not even giving them the courtesy of eye contact.
The GOP has nothing useful or interesting to say, so why do them the favor of conferring legitimacy on their positions by responding to them? Obama is smart to just let the Right stew in the bile of its own making, and set his sights on moving the nation forward in a positive direction. I support his strategy of just staying out of their fetid pool. And I don't worry about his ability to smack them down if necessary-- anybody who has worked the poor neighborhoods in Chicago isn't going to intimidated by a putz like Mitt Romney.

Posted by global yokel | January 28, 2008 7:11 PM

Sugar, the book in question is about torture, and the ticking time bomb scenario is a central point of discussion in the book.

Yes, thanks to Dr. Krauthammer, 98% of the torture debate (such as it is) consists of people trying to deflate or advance this inane hypothetical.

The reason for this is not that endlessly raising a dodgy hypothetical is a good argument. Rather, the reason is there are so few arguments for torture at all, and this one seems to be the least embarrassing for a lot of people on account of its regular use in implausible television dramas.

Posted by southpaw | January 28, 2008 7:17 PM

Mixner,

Hillary certainly didn't stress that she wanted to hold the door open for the possibility of torture in her letter, or in the debate.

I'll grant that a president might go against policy to order torture in the most extreme of circumstances, but if this isn't a matter of policy, and if all the Dems are going to just stress how it shouldn't be a matter of policy, then what would you expect Barack Obama to say other than what Hillary recently has?

In other words, if the ordering of torture from a U.S. President is not a matter of policy, but instead a matter of presidential discretion in extreme or rare circumstances, then no one needs to come out and say that they wish to reserve the right to do it, right?

Posted by Jay J | January 28, 2008 7:26 PM

For those of you arguing that torture is OK in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, just remember that it's far easier for a suspect to simply lie convincingly long enough for the bomb to actually go off.

And of course the suspect is guaranteed to lie if he's innocent. In which case, it's better to have no interrogation at all.

Torture is a garbage generator.

Posted by Jinchi | January 28, 2008 7:36 PM

Mixner, I'm done responding to you with this comment. You're obviously trolling.

Obviously, the book is about torture. But it was written by a different person than the person whose arguments were being cited, a person whose only connection to the arguments being cited was that he contributes to the same blog. If you cited one of Matt Yglesias's arguments and I responded not by addressing that argument but by saying, "Well, Andrew Sullivan disagrees, and he is also a blogger for The Atlantic," I would expect no one to be convinced.

My God-given faculties indicate to me that a nuclear-war scenario is likelier than a ticking time bomb. Why? Well, for one, since before my lifetime at least two superpowers have been building weapons and preparing for the possibility of a nuclear war, to the extent that they've invested literally trillions of dollars in it.

For two, I had basically the same thoughts on the likelihood of the ticking time bomb as did the bloggers linked to by Peter H, which were based on my understanding of human nature and how institutions like our governments work. We make these judgments in probability every day: Well, I should go to work. Of course, there's a chance I'll get mugged and stabbed on the way. But based on what I know about my neighborhood, the time of day, and how people act, there's a better chance I'll get there safely. Might I be wrong? Of course. Is there some great Probability Checker in the Sky that can tell me if it's actually less likely I'm going to get stabbed or if a ticking-time-bomb scenario is going to take place? Of course not. So we use our brains, we take what we do know, we weigh the information at hand, and we make our best judgments.

So to answer your question: No, I guess I don't "know" that nuclear war is a more likely scenario. Nor does anyone else. But at least I can explain why I think it's more likely, rather than just question others' inability to prove the unprovable.

As for my hypothetical, it doesn't prove your point, because it was sarcasm. Your ineptitude at normal human discourse must prove upsetting, or at least bewildering, to yourself at times. Anyway, that's plenty for me. It's been annoying, but then, I kind of enjoy being annoyed sometimes, if it gives me the opportunity to put my thoughts in order. G'night.

Posted by moff | January 28, 2008 7:38 PM

moff,

Bravo. I'm out too.

Posted by southpaw | January 28, 2008 7:45 PM

jay j,

Hillary certainly didn't stress that she wanted to hold the door open for the possibility of torture in her letter, or in the debate.

Hillary clearly said that she thinks the decision to use torture in exceptional circumstances, and the responsibility for that decision, rests with the president. I don't know why you think this is inconsistent with her statement that the use of torture should not be "policy." If it were covered by policy, it wouldn't be a matter of presidential discretion and responsibility.

I'll grant that a president might go against policy to order torture in the most extreme of circumstances, but if this isn't a matter of policy, and if all the Dems are going to just stress how it shouldn't be a matter of policy, then what would you expect Barack Obama to say other than what Hillary recently has?

I expect him to state his position clearly, without hiding behind ambiguity and vagueness. If as president he would never order, authorize, allow or support the use of torture for the purpose of obtaining intelligence to avert a catastrophe, under any circumstances, no matter how dire, no matter how many lives are at stake, then I want to know that.

In other words, if the ordering of torture from a U.S. President is not a matter of policy, but instead a matter of presidential discretion in extreme or rare circumstances, then no one needs to come out and say that they wish to reserve the right to do it, right?

It's not a matter of "reserving the right." It's a matter of him explaining clearly whether as president he would be willing to use torture given a sufficiently dire situation, or whether he would always forbid it regardless of circumstances.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 7:57 PM

moff,

My God-given faculties indicate to me that a nuclear-war scenario is likelier than a ticking time bomb. Why? Well, for one, since before my lifetime at least two superpowers have been building weapons and preparing for the possibility of a nuclear war, to the extent that they've invested literally trillions of dollars in it.

You're backpedalling. You didn't say merely that nuclear war (actually "a nuclear missile attack on the U.S.") is "likelier" than a ticking time bomb situation. You said it is "orders of magnitude" more likely.

You offer not one iota of evidence or argument in support of this claim. You don't even have any basis for evaluating the probability of your item (1). How likely is it that terrorists would be able to obtain the radioactive, chemical, or biological material needed to create a "dirty bomb?" Do you know? Do you have even a rough idea? Of course you don't. That's why your claim about the relative probability of these events has no foundation.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 8:12 PM

Mixner,

Do you honestly believe that most American's watching the debates understand the distinction between policy and presidential discretion?

Hillary said "It cannot be American policy, period."

Now do you really believe that most Americans would react by saying something like,

"Oh yea, she's dead set against it as a matter of policy, which of course means that she's leaving the door open for the President to use it according to discretion"?

Do you really believe that is the impression that a reasonable Joe-Blow would get from her comments?

Also, when Tim Russert reminded Hillary that her husband argued that a ticking-time bomb scenario would be an exception to the no-torture rule, Hillary responded, "Well, I'll talk to him later."

I think it's clear that Hillary is now advocating a position much like Obama's. She may have been crystal clear in the past, clear that she would allow torture in those rare ticking-time bomb situation. But she isn't saying that now, she's saying excatly what Barack Obama is saying. If you still want to rely on this policy/discretion distinction, then what do you do with the fact that she contradicted that in this debate?

Do you really think that she wants to talk to her husband later and tell him that he advocated not the wrong position, but the wrong "policy" position?

Posted by Jay J | January 28, 2008 8:26 PM

Jay J,

I don't think Hillary's quoted statements from the debate do make her position clear. Her clear statement of position is in the New York Daily News interview. In the debate, she doesn't talk about exceptional circumstances or presidential discretion or departures from international standards at all. She just hides behind the "it cannot be policy" line that Obama uses to evade the hard question. Tim Russert should have pressed her harder to explain her position more fully. And Obama too. I think it's pretty obvious why she was being so evasive in the debate. The audience for primary debates consists mostly of party loyalists, and no Democratic candidate wants to appear in a live televised primary debate saying anything that might sound remotely pro-torture. If Hillary had said in the debate what she told the Daily News interviewers, the Obama and Edwards campaigns would have made it into an instant attack ad.

Maybe we'll get some better questioning in the post-convention debates, when each party has a nominee. I think any of the Republican candidates would probably be willing to state clearly that as president he would not rule out authorizing the use of interrogation techniques that cause "severe pain or suffering" as a last resort to obtain intelligence needed to avert a major terrorist attack. If the Democratic candidate is unwilling to make an equivalent commitment, I don't think Americans are going to like it.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 9:03 PM

Ahh, OK Mixner.

Well, coherence is usually something I value quite a bit. Obama's position looks more coherent right now.

If it becomes a necessity to declare that he would authorize torture in some extreme cases, then it seem to me like the general election is the place to do it, rather than stating that there are possible cases, then saying that it should not be a policy, "period." Then saying that you'll have to straighten your husband out since he had it wrong, then going into the general and saying once again that there are possible exceptions.

Also, I saw HIllary say one time that if there were exceptions, then, the President ought to be "held accountable." She spent allot of her time saying that we should develop a legal framework for dealing with these exceptions, probably along the lines of the "discretion" of the president like you say.

But I actually find the idea that we would do what we had to do, and deal with the legal consequences later, somewhat intriguing.

I agree with you on what motivated Hillary the other night, but to me she still technically isn't clear on what she would do any more than Obama, since she seems to have made the no policy "period" remark most recently.

I suppose you could argue that she'll be more likely to go back on that because of the things she's said in the past. I suppose that's one possibility, but I don't know how to assess the likelihood of it.

Also, I'm not sure what John McCain's position on the hypotheticals is, since he's mostly out front on opposing torture. It would seem that if McCain had the same position as the Dems, it wouldn't hurt too much.

I could also imagine a Billary traingulation on McCain is he came out against it in all imaginable circumstances.

If McCain did come out in favor of allowing it in certain rare cases, then it would be tough for the Democratic opponent, since if anyone seems to have moral authority on the topic, it's McCain. It would be nice if McCain came out 100 against it, eh?

Posted by Jay J | January 28, 2008 10:32 PM

Also, I'm not sure what John McCain's position on the hypotheticals is, since he's mostly out front on opposing torture.

A hypothetical situation was put to McCain at one of the Republican debates last year. It involved suicide bombings at shopping centers, and the capture of terrorists believed to have knowledge of pending attacks. McCain was asked how aggressively he would interrogate the captives. He did not preclude the use of torture in all cases. He said, "If I knew for sure that they had that kind of information, I, as the president of the United States, would take that responsibility. That is a million-to-one scenario. But only I would take that responsibility."

So McCain shares Hillary's view that the use of torture in extreme cases is a matter of presidential discretion. More than anyone, McCain has reason from personal experience to reject torture absolutely under all circumstances. But even he agrees that there are "million-to-one" scenarios where it is necessary.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 10:56 PM