September 27, 2007
Posted: 03:38 PM ET

Has Clinton shifted her position on torture policy?

(CNN) — Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, seems to have changed her position on whether a presidential exception should be allowed to use torture to prevent an imminent terror attack.

There was a difference between her answer Wednesday night in the New Hampshire debate where she said “it cannot be American policy, period,” and comments she made in an interview last October.

The campaign said the change is not significant. Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman, said, “Upon reflection and after meeting with former generals and others, Sen. Clinton does not believe that we should be making narrow exceptions to this policy based on hypothetical scenarios.”

In the debate Wednesday night, moderator Tim Russert asked Clinton, "This is the number three man in al Qaeda. We know there's a bomb about to go off, and we have three days, and we know this guy knows where it is. Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?"

She answered, “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," she added. "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."

But last October, she was asked about a presidential exception while talking to the New York Daily News editorial board.

She told the paper, "I have said that those are very rare but if they occur, there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that. And, again, I think the president has to take some responsibility. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it is some reporting within a top secret context. But that shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule. And that if we deviate in the first instance from very disciplined interrogation methods, that are clearly lined out, and that have validation evaluation that goes forward.”

Clinton expressed doubts about the practice overall, as she did in the debate, telling the Daily News that day, “In my talking to interrogators from CIA, FBI, military backgrounds, they are very skeptical about the utility of severity. They say, ‘Look, the way you get good information, you bribe people."

"You bribe their families. You offer to move them to a place of their dreams. You create a bond so that they feel some connection to you," she added. "But that takes time. And so very often, you know people feel so very much under the gun they don't want to take the time to get the vaild information so they use extraordinary means, and they get junk that doesn't lead anywhere and basically not useful.”

– CNN Political Desk Editor Steve Brusk

Filed under: Hillary Clinton


James, Phoenix AZ (the real one)   September 29th, 2007 2:01 pm ET

"Why ISN'T she able to change her mind? That is what makes the Democrats the best choice. Better than the bull-headed administration we have now.

Posted By James, Phoenix AZ : September 29, 2007 9:55 am "

- - - - - -

"James in Pheonix" - she can flip-flop all day long. Most of us expect that from her (voted for the war - against it now, calls for troop withdrawals but can't answer a direct question when SHE would have them out, says no to torture - except if/when SHE thinks it's ok, etc etc).

At LEAST with Bush - you know where this guy stands. You may not like it but he has been consistent in his pursuit of terrorists and regimes that openly support them.

Willy, Chesapeake   September 29th, 2007 12:01 am ET

"… the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

from the book by Joseph J. Ellis called "Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary Generation

ABH (Anyone But Hillary)   September 28th, 2007 10:22 pm ET

She tortures me. Really.

james h, san francisco, ca   September 28th, 2007 6:22 pm ET

hey james in az,
in the tradition of comments that make no sense, why did you think that Clinton's vote on determining Iran's military a "terrorist" organization has anything to do with her becoming more "liberal" on torture (meaning she's moving away from seeing even an exceptional need for it)? Those are two separate issues.

If you're trying to make the case that Clinton is moving to the political middle, the evidence is contradictory at best. Indeed, for all of her career as an elected official, she's been in the middle on military issues.

James, Phoenix AZ   September 28th, 2007 11:55 am ET

Laurinda - NY,

You wrote,
"JAMES FROM AZ…No wonder your thinking is so screwed up. Fox is for the Republicans. They fill your head with all kinds of nonsense and then you go away thinking that you you are on to something. I can't stand O'Reilly, he is a scatter brain. Most people can not make heads or tails about what he is talking about. If I were you, I would stick with CNN and be well informed."

Um Laurinda - Chris Matthews is on MSNBC not Fox. Perhaps IF you had watched the debate and analysis - you would have known this.

Dale, El Paso, TX   September 28th, 2007 11:55 am ET

Yes, a shifty one she is!

Tonto   September 28th, 2007 11:26 am ET

Billary speak with forked tongue.

JB Boston MA   September 28th, 2007 11:25 am ET

UNBELIEVABLE - IT IS CALLED READING COMPREHENSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She is saying that she is not taking torture off the table. She is keeping it an option. Dems freaked on Bush when he said this. Why aren't you all freaking on Hillary.

Several Hillary fans are saying "ya she is right, torture shouldn't be an option"

That is in direct contrast to what she is saying here!!!!!!!

demwit   September 28th, 2007 10:53 am ET

"is that there is very little evidence that it works.”

Thats False.

Just ask our prisoners of war what information they revealed when being tortured. Or CNN could simply ask John McCain what he spilled while being tortured. Everything was his last response..

Its a well known fact that most people can not withstand these torture techniques. We fool ourselves to think otherwise.

Chris, Middletown, CT   September 28th, 2007 10:24 am ET

There must a book…or pamphlet thats handed out at Hillary supporters conventions - "heres what to say when we flip/flop" - and the classic - "if anyone brings up all Bills infidelities" - my God…you have an excuse for everything….I wonder what the excuse will be when she loses…"the Republicans used the supreme court to make us lose…." - or the classic "they disenfranchised all the minority voters…they were fearful to come out of their houses" - you are a sad group in a moron parade

karen, orlando, fl   September 28th, 2007 10:04 am ET

Hey Tom in Mass.
I'll try and give you a response fom a rational Democrat. Although I haven't made up my mind which candidate I will support yet,there are a lot of things about HRC that I don't agree with. My dad is a retired navy seal commander and needless to say we do not share the same political views but we've had many discussions about the war and how we could and should get out of it. My dad took his responsibility over his men very seriously and his motto has always been 'you don't put your men in the line of fire unless you absolutely have to' and I will never believe that we absulutely had to in Iraq. The fact is that we are there and although many American's want us out I don' believe it's that simple, we have destabilized the region and that could have dire consequences for us later.I know that Hillary voted for the war and I have a big problem with the fact taht she is so critical of a war that she voted for. I really don't think that us average American's will ever truly know the real reasons that we went to Iraq, I don't think it was for WMD's and it's certainly not for the sole purpose of spreading freedom and democracy (but that sure sounds good for PR purposes), I don't even think it was for oil since we haven't seen a drop in prices and we're not using the oil reserves to help pay for the war. So even though I'm not a fan of Bush and I've always been against the war I will admit that there may be more to our reasons for being there that we just don't know about.

So….as a Democrat I was proud that we took control of Congress in November but disappointed in the waivering back and forth of the candidates…take a stand and stick with it!!! Hillary seems to be doing a lot of pandering and we're smart enough to see through that.

To recap for all of you Republicans:
Democrats do not hate America nor do we wish to see us fail in Iraq. We're not socialist or communist and we don't believe that government is responsible for solving all of our problems. Remember that there are extreme nut jobs on both sides of the aisle, most of us live somewhere comfortably in the middle.

MG, Manchester, CT   September 28th, 2007 9:03 am ET

She said, "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy." So does that mean that perhaps it could be used at times when it's warranted and serve as an exception to the policy? I think she's quite a cunning speaker - just read her statements.

JB Boston MA   September 28th, 2007 8:33 am ET

Over and over again on this ticker I have seen people use the excuse, "but the (insert party) did it first" or as STEVE says in his post:

You mean, like Gonzales, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld already have?

Steve, correct me if I am wrong, you didn't like it when Bush et al did it, why would it be OK for your candidate to do it?????

I think everyone can agree that the past 8 years have not been great years.

I think we can also agree that we all want change. When we all use the excuse "but (insert career political person here) did it". . . it truthfully gets us no where.

We all need to start putting our feet down and saying no more. We are not going to put up with you telling us one thing during the elections, in order to get elected, and doing another when in office. And if something upsets us if our rival (if you have a rival party) party does it, we should not be open to our party doing the same thing.

Recently Bill CLinton accused the Republican party of being hypocrites. The truth is, both parties are hypocrites and only the voter can make it stop. Call out your party when they are doing things you don't like or being hypocritical.

But this childish you did it first thing has GOT TO STOP.

JB stepping off his soap boax. . . . .

Chip Celina OH   September 28th, 2007 8:02 am ET

Monica from Rochester,

I've looked at both of your posts and am in complete agreement with you. Sen. Clinton is a very good politician. But is that what we need?

Your first post on this blog used one of my favorite phrases, "process information." I haven't seen her ability to do that. I know a lot of people will try and jump on this, but she doesn't do it. She memorizes talking points and stances on things that have happened, and can regurgitate the "team's" version/recollection of the issue very well. But, when it comes to thinking on her feet, she doesn't do it.

After Gravel blind-sided her in the debate the other night, she started her reply with "I don't know where to start…"
That's because a new situation arose that hadn't been 'in the script'. What was her final response to that? I'm still waiting.

When Tim Russert dropped the bomb (no pun intended) on her with the revelation that her husband provided the answer he quoted on the torture question, she got that deer in the headlights look, then tried to make a funny, "Well, he's not standing here, is he" yeah, too bad to because that's why probably 40% of the folks that support her are doing so, to get Bill back. (You know 2-for-1). Then she tried to follow it up with another funny, I'll talk to him about that tonight. Yeah, I'd really have liked to been a fly on the wall for that conversation.

Have a good Friday,

JB Boston MA   September 28th, 2007 7:44 am ET

Hey Pixie-

Read the article. She is saying that torture is an option.

She also said that we are going to be in Iraq for a long long time. But even though those were two major hot buttons for Dems, and, Hill originally said what you dems wanted to hear, she has brainwashed you now. Now you all are on board, and can't get off. WHERE IS YOUR POLITICAL FORTITUDE? It is actually kinda amusing!!! And sad on some level!

Derrick, San Diego CA   September 28th, 2007 4:17 am ET

Torture should not be allowed. If we start torturing terrorists THEY WILL TORTURE US. This would be terrible for the military. The whole purpose of the Geneva Convention was ethical treatment in all situations. Once we show that we are willing to torture prisoners, how are we going to stop other countries from torturing US Prisoners and military. We can't. We will lose our moral ground. Sometimes you have to find other ways to get information. I wish people would think of the consequences of thier actions before they advocate them. There is a reason why the US Military and Intelligence officials say no to torture.

Walters, A   September 28th, 2007 3:55 am ET

IT'S HI TIME WE LOOK CRITICALLY BEFORE ELECTING OUR LEADERS SHE IS A TRUE ESCALATION OF THE BUSH LEGACY,DISHONESTY AT THE PEAK BUT FORTUNATELY ENOUGH FOR HER, NO ONE IN THIS INTELLECTUAL DISHONEST MEDIA WILL POINT THIS OUT, (EXCEPT THE BEST CHRIST MATHEW, FRIENDLY REMINDER

1) SHE JUST VOTED TO NAME THE IRANIAN NATIONAL GUARD, A TERORIST GROUP TOMMOROW WHEN HER CLIQUE OF BUSH AND NEOCONS DECISE TO ATTACK IRAN, SHE WILL CLAIM HER VOTE WAS TO GIVE THIS SAME PRESIDENT ENOUGH ROOM FOR DIPLOMACY.

2) VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR WHICH IS PRESENTLY THE WORST FOREIGN POLICY DISASATER IN THIS COUNTRY- VEHEMENTLY AND ARROGANTLY REFUSE TO APPOLOGIZE FOR HER ERRORS, WITHOUT EVEN READIND THE REPORT
.3) PANDERING TO BLACK VOTERS BUT REFUSED FUNDING AND EXTENSION OF MORE HIV FUNDS FOR BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA 2006 IN THE SENATE

4) LIKES TO RUN ON HER HUSBAND POSITIVE LEGACY BUT REFUSE TO INHERIT THE BAD ONES, NAFTA (1993) NO PROTECTION OF AMERICAN WORKERS. HUSBAND WAS CALL THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT IRONICALLY HIGHEST BLACKS INCARCERATION RATE DURING HIS REGIME.

5) THE MOST DEVISIVE OF ALL CANDIDATES BUSH TRIED SO HARD TO PASS AN IMMIGRATION BILL UNDER A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WHICH WAS PRO IMMIGRATION BUT DID NOT SUCCEED DESPITE NUMEROUS TRIPS TO THE CAPITOL SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS JUST AS POLARIZED LIKE HER.

6) ARROGANT AND DICTATORIAL- REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTION SHE FELT WILL EXPOSE HER< DEEPLY EMBEDED WITH COPERATE INTEREST AND LOBBYIST- JUST A CONTINUATION OF GREED AND SELF AGGRANDISEMENT< FAVOR OUTSOURCING USA JOBS TO INDIA, REFUSING TO NAME DONNORS TO THE CLINTON'S PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY BECAUSE OF A CONTINUATION OF THE NORMAN HSU DONATIONS SCANDALS.
SHE CAN'T EXPLAIN HER STANDS ON ANY MAJOR ISSUE.
I WILL VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO WILL BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER AND GET THE JOB DONE.
OBAMA-BIDEN 2008 OR VICE VERSA, CANDIDATES WITH INTERGRITY AND CANDOR.
" A WORD TO A WISE IS SUFFICIENT" JUST DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE VOTING NOT SIMPLY FANATISM.

Daniel, El Paso, TX   September 28th, 2007 2:58 am ET

As a veteran I will say this, Hillary stance on torture is sick. Its not about the bomb, there are other ways to deal with that issue. Evacuations etc are all possible ideas, but to say that you would side step international conventions to get what we want? Thats horrible. I don't want to "waste" my vote on a 3rd party again, lets actually get someone that has some brains in office. Please… please… Wake up America.

Try and find me?   September 28th, 2007 12:42 am ET

Please dont torture terrorist, when have we ever done anything to you.

EJS Dallas Texas   September 28th, 2007 12:07 am ET

I would love to hear more about ALL the great things AMERICA has found via torture. must be some great American tradition. If americans suppports torture WE cannot possibly complain when OUR servicemen are tortured.IF it's so reliable why aren't we using it domestically. George Bush knows nothing about torture, the very honorable John McCain is infinitely more aware of ALL the aspects of torture. YA know People, OUR first reaction is usually not the BEST solution, any Adult should realize that.

Karen, Des Moines, Iowa   September 27th, 2007 11:11 pm ET

So, she is against torture because it does not work? Not because it is wrong!

ronnie - knoxville, tn.   September 27th, 2007 11:10 pm ET

i think "christian" doesn't know many christians or republicans. check the old testament; the bible does indeed favor war and especially the Word of God tells us to fight evil and there's a lot of evil over there in the middle east in case you haven't noticed.

John, Seattle, WA   September 27th, 2007 10:50 pm ET

I would vote for Bill if he ran again, but no chance am I voting for Hillary.

David, Minneapolis, MN   September 27th, 2007 10:49 pm ET

Hillary Clinton the flip-flopper, she makes Democrats look horrible! This is why Obama should win, a guy that is consistent on his views. This is the woman who voted to authorize action in Iraq

Ron, TX   September 27th, 2007 10:33 pm ET

Some of the rationalizations you people are making for Hillary Clinton are down-right absurd. She said there could be case where she uses torture, and now, she says there is "no case" for torture?! Yeah. There is no room for her to play middle ground in there. You either torture or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

She just magically changed her mind over the course of a few months? That's what she -DOES-! She says what the audience wants to hear even if she doesn't believe it! The problem with that is that we don't know if she would or would not torture somebody now. Deep down inside, you HRC supporters KNOW there's something messed up with what she jsut did. And you KNOW that there's something messed up about a presidential candidate who REFUSES to answer a question! Your job is the ANSWER the people's questions so we KNOW what your positions are!

Michael, Houston, TX   September 27th, 2007 10:32 pm ET

Hillary Clinton. It should by Hypocritcal Clinton. Once again the Clinton's are betting that Americans are fools. Unfortunately, they're probably right.

Truth Teller   September 27th, 2007 10:25 pm ET

By voting yes on Kyl-Lieberman, Hillary demonstrates that she learned NOTHING from her vote to give GWB power to invade Iraq. Let's wake up before it's too late. She is incapable of change, and we will be at war with Iran if she has any say in it.

Jen Dublin, Ohio   September 27th, 2007 10:02 pm ET

Hillary '08 - I can't wait!!

Mark in Raleigh NC   September 27th, 2007 9:33 pm ET

John Edwards couldn't even help carry his home precinct in Raleigh,NC in 2004 election. HILLARY will be the next President and I will cast my tarheel vote for her in the NC primary
and cancel out John Edward's vote for himself in his adopted State of NC.

Mike, Cleveland, Ohio   September 27th, 2007 9:20 pm ET

James Phoenix

"call General Petreaus a liar"
Are you inferring that Hillary called him a liar by not voting for the moveon.org ad condemnation or did she actually say this?

Please site your source
Thanks

pamEugene OR   September 27th, 2007 9:17 pm ET

I have enjoyed these comments so much. They have been the best I have read yet! To Marshall who asked "why are people piling on this woman". I can tell you. She talks and talks and talks but will not take a clear stand on anything anymore. She does indeed think she has it in the bag and is completely unwilling to say anything that might trip her up later. She has so many different answers on each issue that she can't keep them all straight. Her answers depend on her current audience. She just wants this so badly that she will say anything (or nothing)to get there. I watched her on all the Sunday shows and I can't count the number of times she would say "I can't specualte on that" or "I am not going to answer that" or "don't try to pin me down on that" I want her and all the others running to speculate. I want to know what my president will do given a set of circumstances. You MUST speculate to tell us what you think you might do. No one else dodges as many questions as she does. I do not trust anything she says and I do think she is Bush heavy. She will never get us out of the horrible war or get all of us fair health insurance or deal with the illegal immigration issues. She has such a giagantic ego she only wants to be Madame President that she will lie lie and then lie some more.
Yes, I am a Hillhater now!
Obama 08…give me hope.

mass boston   September 27th, 2007 9:04 pm ET

only in america one can win a debate without answering any question, u go girl in the next 5 years u might as well skip the debate u still be declared a winner,from a neutral point of view now i know why they is mr bush in the white house

Christian, Tampa FL   September 27th, 2007 8:28 pm ET

Torture doesn't work and never will. I cannot believe that the Republicans are so insane on the torture issue. Aren't they the ones courting Christians?

Well, there's nothing less Christ-like than torture. If we are an honorable nation, we would pursue benevolent means to gain information, and we would treat our enemies with respect and dignity as international law dictates.

monica, rochester new york   September 27th, 2007 8:22 pm ET

I think Hillary has a respectable showing in the debates so far. But this particular debate really underscored how her campaign is about playing the political game instead of really trying to connect with the people to give them something to vote FOR. Her cautious evading of answers and providing no specifics was a sad commentary on the kind of leadership she offers. She said "I'm not going to answer that" more times than Alberto Gonzales said " I don't recall". I'm just not interested in more of the same. I'm ready to turn the page.

laurinda,ny   September 27th, 2007 8:13 pm ET

Don't waste you time on these Republikids, they'll be in bed soon..it's a school night.

Russell NC   September 27th, 2007 7:37 pm ET

Hillary is a flip flopper. She will say whatever she thinks will be good for at any given time.

pl. at the UN for a while.   September 27th, 2007 7:22 pm ET

I totally agree with the observation that Ms Rodham Clinton has the Dem nomination under control, and it is now time to think nationally and of Repubs.
What kind of childish question was that anyway?

James, Phoenix AZ   September 27th, 2007 7:12 pm ET

James - SF

You said, "clinton's position on torture is turning MORE liberal, not less"

Uh huh… so you anti-war folks then are quite happy Hillary voted to deem Iran's military as a "terrorist" organization - essentially giving President Bush a green light on Iran?

James, Phoenix AZ   September 27th, 2007 7:08 pm ET

All you Hillpraisers - if you think she is lock-step in tune with your point of view… great. I just seemed to be hearing lots of whining for folks on the left. Whining about:

1. Getting out of Iraq (She won't commit but will grand stand in public and call General Petreaus a liar).

2. Whining about "special interests" money and how it has bought-and-paid for our politicians (Hillary supports special interest donations).

3. Whining about Gay marriage (Hillary is against gay marriage).

4. Candidates that flip-flop (Hillary voted FOR the war, now is against it, this article talks of her shifting policies on torture, etc)

5. Needing a fresh start (Bush - Clinton - Bush - now Clinton??)

If ever there has been a corination of a candidate - Hillary was it! Aparently the only RACE going on with the Democrat party is for the VP job.

Oh and by the way… Bush, Rove, and the conservatives thank you. They could not have ochestrated this arrangement any better. Had the democrat candidates been more direct with Hillary, she could have built a degree of immunity from the forth coming attacks from the right. However, since no candidate DARE say anything to seriously challenge her, the public will get the rude awakening of who Hillary really is.

Greg, Phoenix, AZ   September 27th, 2007 7:03 pm ET

No way!

Hillary completely contradicted herself and then just tried to giggle her way through an incomprehensible retort?

Couldn't be true!

sonya, atlanta,ga   September 27th, 2007 6:53 pm ET

Hillary is right on issues? We don't know what she stands for. People must be drinking the Jim Jones koolaid.

Randall Seefeldt, Indianapolis, Indiana   September 27th, 2007 6:49 pm ET

Ms. Clinton has certainly matured into a true politician: when asked a probing question, she talks. And talks. And then talks some more. (Witness her answer to the New York Daily News editorial board's question on a presidential exception for torture.)

On my college essay exams, the good Dr. Woodruff would draw a huge red spiral over any of my answers that read like virtually all of Hillary's.

His point? It's not too hard to tell when someone is winging it, hoping that if they just put enough words out there, their audience will think they've answered the question.

"The most intelligent woman in America"? Maybe just the most verbose. Or is that the same nowadays? It seems to be working for her.

Steve   September 27th, 2007 6:40 pm ET

"I like the "bribe them" idea better. "Hey Mr. Terrorist, we'll give you ten million dollars if you tell us where you and your friends hid that nuclear weapon…"

Hey, Hypocrite: is this like sending Iran ARMS FOR HOSTAGES? You Republican liar. Blow it out your ear.

"What a crock. This woman is an idiot…"

Oh, Hillary is smarter than most people, obviously including you.

"…who will either lie to us and tell us she is against torture but do it anyway."

You mean, like Gonzales, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld already have?

"…Or, not torture, give the guy a few million and a ticket to paradise."

Your mom's calling. Get off her computer, and wipe that spittle off her keyboard, sonny boy.

Jason, Il   September 27th, 2007 6:38 pm ET

hahaha.. flip flopper

james h, san francisco, ca   September 27th, 2007 6:30 pm ET

hey james in phoenix, anyone's free to like or dislike clinton. but, your comment here doesn't make any sense.

clinton's position on torture is turning MORE liberal, not less. earlier she wanted to leave room for exceptional cases. now, she's saying there is no need for that exception because torture isn't even effective anyway, according to military top brass.

it's distressing to see people just spew their opinions without even understanding the arguments.

and jeff, what makes you think torture is so effective? just a hunch?

did you read the article? military experts suggest bribing family members and others nearby, not the actual criminals themselves. there's a huge difference. the interrogation strategies that are most effect for criminals most certainly do not involve tickets to paradise, but they do involve making them feel like they have a confidant. The New Yorker had a great article about this issue, recently.

dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD.   September 27th, 2007 6:28 pm ET

I don't see the contradiction. The ticking time bomb scenario is a law school hypothetical, not something that happens in real life. In real life, if you know the terrorist's identity and position in Al Quaeda, that there is a bomb, and when it's going off, then you also have a good idea where the bomb is. No policy is necessary for such a rare occurrence, as Sen. Clinton doubtless realized after indulging a number of these silly hypotheticals.

And Jeff in Rochester:

I understand that some people hate Sen. Clinton, but I always assumed that there was SOME rational basis for this. I begin to doubt.
You state that she's an "idiot" who would lie and torture anyway. Why is that idiotic? It seems more Machiavellian to me.
More important, even if I assume that she'd actually follow through on her "offer" to move the terrorist to the retirement villa of his dreams, i.e., that she isn't just lying to HIM, what's your basis for thinking that she'd arbitrarily follow that option rather than the first one? In other words, what is there about her character or goals that make you think she's just as likely to do one OR the other?
You may, of course, dislike Sen. Clinton for any reason whatsoever, but spewing baseless and frankly incomprehensible denunciations is unlikely to convince others that your disaffection is rooted in reality.

Cindy, Kissimmee Florida   September 27th, 2007 6:24 pm ET

The use of torture is barbaric and should not be tolerated in this country for any reason!

Tricia M Charlottetown PEI   September 27th, 2007 6:19 pm ET

To James and Jeff:

Well, there's one big thing Hillary has going for her in my view.

You can apothecate, guessulate, speculate and pontifficate with all the Chris Matthews of the world on what Hillary is going, or is not ging to do. Or on whether Hillary is a hypocrit, a flip flopper or down right truthful.

But the biggest thing Hillary has going for her is - that WE ALL KNOW what George Bush and his Republicans are and are not. And we all know that nothing Hillary will do or will not do will ever come close to George's level of failure.

And all Republican Candidates are Bush Clones so I'd say she has it in the bag.

JPS. Miami, FL   September 27th, 2007 6:18 pm ET

I knew it! I knew Hillary was a harda## .

Becky, Euless, TX   September 27th, 2007 5:59 pm ET

This Mrs Clinton is always shifting her position, I am shifting from her, too!! I don't want a shifting President

Tom, AlBUQUERQUE, NM   September 27th, 2007 5:53 pm ET

Hillary Clinton's ascendency to the Presidency is a fait accompli. She is right on all the issues, including her stance against torture. We can't become the monsters we claim to oppose.Torture is morally wrong..period.

Lynn   September 27th, 2007 5:52 pm ET

You really have to respect the first woman, in American history, who made it this far in a run for presidency. Even if she is not your personal top pick, you have to see that it takes strength and smarts to make it this far, playing a man's game and respect her for that. Second, no matter who gets elected in '08, it will be a step up from Bush. IS this torture issues really what one basis their vote on? That is actually more amazingly stupid than basing it on the abortion issue. Yes, she is being a politician. Welcome to America…this is what they do.

Mhm   September 27th, 2007 5:47 pm ET

What works, works. Bribing, among other things do, torture just forces someone to give a response, will that response always be truthful or even helpful? Not at all.

Loved how the moderator tried to one up her by telling her it was Bill Clinton's opinion and she turned it around and solidified the point that she is her own person. It was easily the best moment of the debate.

There is a reason she has it in the bag, its because shes the most inteligent, experienced and qualified canditite for the job. Can't wait for her election.

Tom, AlBUQUERQUE, N   September 27th, 2007 5:44 pm ET

JEFF IS EITHER A MORON OR ONE OF THOSE EVIL FAR RIGHT NUTS. MRS CLINTON IS RIGHT, WE SHOULD NEVER ENGAGE IN TORTURE. IT SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF OUR OPTIONS. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT. IF WE TORTURE OTHERS THEN WE TOO SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO TORTURE WITHOUT RESPITE.

Marshal Phillips, Wichita, Kansas   September 27th, 2007 5:38 pm ET

Sen Clinton gave a reasoned response based on her consultations with military personnel.
Hillary bashers will say anything nasty no matter what this presidential candidate says.
My wife and I, recovering republicans,
are listening to what she actually says rather than what her detractors spin is.
Why is everyone piling on this women?
Where is Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meier when we need them?

Don F, Mount Prospect, Illinois   September 27th, 2007 5:23 pm ET

I would like to thank the candidates for giving me a heads up on how they would treat captured terrorists with nucelar secrets. I now know I have only until January of 2009 to relocate to a rural area to avoid a big city nuke set off by Al Qaeda or Hezbollah.

Didn't these candidates learn from Michael (no death penalty even if you rape and murder my wife) Dukakis in 1988?

RightyTighty   September 27th, 2007 5:12 pm ET

Bush heavy! Hmmm…

monica, rochester new york   September 27th, 2007 5:12 pm ET

It's not good for the democratic process for HRC to refuse to answer questions with specifics. Obama said recently he "may not be as good as she is at playing the political game, he's just interested in trying to end the game playing." That's why he answers every question as honestly and as forthright as he can. You may or may not like what he says every time but you certainly know where he stands and how he thinks through and processes information. He's about honesty and candor. That's the kind of leader we need to build back our respect around the world and pull together our divided house. HRC seems to place less value on doing/saying what's right, and more value on simply doing what she hopes wins, by any means necessary. I'm amazed that so many democrats don't have alarm bells going off in their heads, to warn of the potential danger she represents, with the politics as usual. But then again, I was floored by how many people voted for Bush the second time. So I guess I shouldn't be so surprised. It's too bad though.

Rick D., DeLand, FL   September 27th, 2007 5:12 pm ET

"The campaign said the change is not significant?" Ah, of course, there's no significance in whether or not the president authorizes violent breaches of international human rights. Why oh why are my fellow Democrats falling head-over-heels over this Janus-faced "centrist?"

Rodney Dallas TX   September 27th, 2007 5:06 pm ET

I don't know James, Bush has been yanking all the repubs around like puppets on a string. How does it feel?

Dave Malone - Red Springs, KY   September 27th, 2007 5:04 pm ET

This is a meaningless line of questioning, pre-election, anyway. The President can always decide to make a unilateral decision, called an Executive Order, which is followed first, and must be proven to be illegal, un-Constitutional, etc. later. He or she assumes the responsibility, if the act is determined to be illegal, including all penalties.

Bush, for example, violated multiple Amendments with his Patriot Act, yet it stands as legal now, because the Supreme Court has been silent on it, and the Congress endorsed it.

I agree with Jeff from Rochester- Hillary's a colossal dummy with minimal leadership qualities at best.

Tom - Dedham, Mass   September 27th, 2007 4:59 pm ET

I admit I am not a Democrat, nor do I hate all Democrats, as Biden and Richardson have garnered my respect, but Biden especially, if a Republican won the WH he would be smart to nominate him for Sec. of state.

Looking for smart and experienced, check out Biden and Richardson.

I always thought it was a good idea to nominate a few from the losing party to some posts as that way the views and ideas are not always stale.

I just want to ask how you Democrats (especially the Hillary supporters) feel about her answer on having the troops out by 2013?

She can't guarantee they will be out in 6 years even though she has been hammering Bush on a timeline for this year, next year or real soon.

Getting them out is the biggest issue and she blew it and THEN I can't believe the rest blew the WIDE OPEN SHOT.

I agree with James and Jeff, what is this a game, if she isn't "Not answering a question", she is, yes people, flip-flopping in a small period of time on the ones she calculates she can answer.

Keep in mind, she didn't read the reports prior to authorizing the war, is on record supporting the toppling of Saddam when it was popular and is also on record as saying that he had weapons and must be stopped.

Are you happy with her on these issues.

I will save you the time, Bush sucks and all Republicans suck, now how about some reasoned responses.

j. van dyke, westchester, ny.   September 27th, 2007 4:58 pm ET

Im smiling real big and I like HIllary a whole better today !

Wayne, Washington, Dc   September 27th, 2007 4:56 pm ET

oh my, what a shocker!

She's been "flip-flopping" all along.

Vote Republican with a spine!

Common Sense   September 27th, 2007 4:55 pm ET

That photograph is Torture. Not to mention everything Hillary stands for.

Noah, CA   September 27th, 2007 4:48 pm ET

Jeff, what if that person is innocent and we made a mistake when we captured them? Should we still torture them?

What if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and somehow got captured yourself? Would you want to be tortured?

Ron, TX   September 27th, 2007 4:48 pm ET

This is why Hillary Clinton has the highest negatives of all potential nominees in polls. She will do -anything- she can to be the next President. Notice I said the next President, and not our President.

This is just the highlights. It's only just now making the news, but Hillary has admitted she didn't even READ the Iraq intelligence reports before voting for the war in Iraq. She refuses to admit she made a mistake. She back-tracked so bad on troop pullout that she literally said she doesn't know what she'll be inheriting -one- year from now. And just a few days ago, she voted with Republicans to condemn Iran and move us a step closer to a NEW war.

People need to start thinking long and hard before they elect this person. Lies, pandering, and dodging hard questions… laughing and cackling during the NH Debates and blatantly refusing to answer questions? Come on!

two oh nine, gallatin mt.   September 27th, 2007 4:47 pm ET

YESSSSSSSSSS Hillary 's becoming more like Bush Lite every day ! ! !

KEITH JAMES LOUTTIT   September 27th, 2007 4:46 pm ET

Its just unbearable to know that Ms Hillary (Rodham) Clinton could change her position on any topic.
Oh Heavens!!! What could be in store for America now? Her support for our troops abroad? Tax breaks?

Hope Eternal, St Pete FL   September 27th, 2007 4:40 pm ET

I do NOT support Hillary, I think she leads based upon the polls. But I also don't like these hypothetical traps that too many of these moderators choose as 'entertainment' questions.

He says, "We know there's a bomb about to go off." Well how do we know that? Perhaps through other intelligence? If so, then we would follow up on that intelligence! Not torture someone else - perhaps the wrong person no less.

There is no correct answer for hypothetical questions because too many unforeseen variables cannot be accounted for.

D.T., Hartford, CT   September 27th, 2007 4:36 pm ET

If you have read that article clearly, Jeff, you will see that she didn't endorse the idea of bribing. She is continuing a quote from the generals that bribing is the best way to get information.

Ray, Venice, CA   September 27th, 2007 4:33 pm ET

You republican'ts all need to stop crying about Hillary. You had your chance at running things and you screwed everything up….as usual. Wake up and realize your reign of terror is over, or at least coming to an end. Whether it is Hilary or any of the other Democratic cantidates, it will be a tremendous improvement from the retarded wanna be cowboy in office now.

Go cry to Bill O’Reilly because no one else is listening, or cares, about your bellyaching.

David, Gilbert Arizona   September 27th, 2007 4:28 pm ET

Jeff, so you torture the begeebers out of the guy and he tells you everything he thinks you want to hear. How much of what he's saying is true and how much of it is just happy noise to get you to stop torturing him?

You go look for the bomb where he says it is and of course the bomb isn't there. You come back to torture the guy some more and by then your three days are up. BOOM!

You're dealing with radical Islamic fundamentalists who strongly believe in martyrdom. These are people who will send young men to run across mine fields in order to clear a path. These young men run willingly across the field knowing full well they will be blown up and die. They do so because of their unfettered belief in their cause. This is what happened when Iraq tried to invade Iran. The war stalemated because both sides are so radical.

Torture will not work on such a person.

Carrol Ann, Newport, Maine   September 27th, 2007 4:28 pm ET

Hillary's comments are not "less" appealing to her liberal base, which includes me. Some of us, nay many of us, believe in and support the Geneva Convention. War has a different face now, and some of us appreciate that. But war is war and the treatment we mete out to our opponents very much affects the way our own troops and civilians are perceived and treated by others. In fact it affects how our nation is perceived!

Far from "laughing at us" she is in step with many of us. And don't worry, we can withstand the "weak on terrorism" "blast 'em all of the face of the earth" mentality that is going to come our way in full force.

Many Americans are capable of looking at problems front end out, as opposed to back end in. We look at world politics and question what has created this torrent of rage and hatred towards the U.S. Finding the answers to those type of questions places us in far greater safety than any number of bombs ever will.

So thank you Hillary for being the voice of reason that has been missing from this country for far too long now.

See ya in November!

Eric, from THE Republic of Texas   September 27th, 2007 4:16 pm ET

I think this woman was descended from a long line of pretzel makers.

This must be the case, as she literally ties herself in knots when taking a stand on an issue.

Getting Senator Clinton to take a stand on an issue (hell, ANY issue… the color of the sky, anything!) and tell you what she really, honestly, truly feels about something, is akin to nailing jello to the wall. It simply cannot be done.

laurinda,ny   September 27th, 2007 4:15 pm ET

JAMES FROM AZ…No wonder your thinking is so screwed up. Fox is for the Republicans. They fill your head with all kinds of nonsense and then you go away thinking that you you are on to something. I can't stand O'Reilly, he is a scatter brain. Most people can not make heads or tails about what he is talking about. If I were you, I would stick with CNN and be well informed.

Pixie, Murfreesboro, TN   September 27th, 2007 4:06 pm ET

The woman is dead on. No torture. Period.

The fact that there even has to be a debate about this just shows how far our national character has eroded in the past 6 years.

Lynn Ensley   September 27th, 2007 4:02 pm ET

we will take Hillary anyway we can get her for president. After this administration it would be impossible to be worse off. This lady is a breath of fresh air after what we have had over the last 7 years. Two for the price of one, We are going to take it back Pugs, I promise you jokers.

Rob   September 27th, 2007 4:00 pm ET

Imagine if this story was about Obama. All heck would breakout! It would be on the front page of every paper in America and would circulate in the media for months. How much you want to beat this is story will be forgotten by the media by hmm, let say…tomorrow! We should start count down to another forgotten negative story about Hillary Clinton. Clinton will get away with this one too.

BB, Atlanta, GA   September 27th, 2007 3:57 pm ET

We are surprised she is a flip flopper? I am sorry does that make her a hypocrite? It runs in her family you know - look at Bill. He mindlessly runs out and spews his utter crap and the dems and libs lap it up as the truth.

Jen, Gainvesville, FL 32653   September 27th, 2007 3:56 pm ET

She is an expert in playing politics. When have Hillary and her husband ever been trustworthy?

John, Kansas City, MO   September 27th, 2007 3:53 pm ET

Although there is a difference between saying "it's not policy" and condemning torture, this is a step in the right direction. I am surprised that America has slipped so much that whether or not torture is justifiable is even a question.

Sean, Central Florida   September 27th, 2007 3:50 pm ET

Great job Hill, you say so much without saying anything at all. We don't need more of the same old we need something new. What will she do if they attack again, bomb an empty asprin factory in the middle east?

"You bribe their families. You offer to move them to a place of their dreams. You create a bond so that they feel some connection to you," HAH, Yes I want my tax dallors paying for terriosts to live in the Bahamas. What a carrer move for the terrosits.

JKap, Schaumburg, IL   September 27th, 2007 3:48 pm ET

I was struck immediately that she did not answer definitively “no” to the question that Russert posed directly to her: "Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?"

Jeff, Rochester   September 27th, 2007 3:44 pm ET

I like the "bribe them" idea better. "Hey Mr. Terrorist, we'll give you ten million dollars if you tell us where you and your friends hid that nuclear weapon…"

What a crock. This woman is an idiot who will either lie to us and tell us she is against torture but do it anyway. Or, not torture, give the guy a few million and a ticket to paradise.

In either case, she is wrong. We should torture the SOB and get the info we need to save lives.

God help us if she is somehow elected.

James, Phoenix AZ   September 27th, 2007 3:44 pm ET

Chris Matthews on Hardball last night - hit the nail squarely on the head. Hillary thinks she has won this nomination and is attempting to simply defend her way into a nomination.

Hillary has started her national campaign. She will begin to say things which are less appealing to her liberal base - and more centurist statements (no gaurantee getting out of Iraq, refuse to answer ANY potential hypothetical answer, do not take a solid stand on any topic, etc).

She's laughing at you democrats. She knows she has it "in the bag" and no longer has to keep your interests at heart. Everyone in Hollywood is falling over themselves to endorse her and Republicans are preparing their campaigns against her.

How does it feel to be taken for granted by your own party?

Comments have been closed for this article

subscribe RSS Icon
About The Ticker

The latest political news from CNN's Best Political Team, with campaign coverage, 24-7. Sign up for our twice daily Ticker emails. Got a news tip or feedback? For complete political coverage, bookmark CNNPolitics.com.

CNN=Politics Screensaver

CNN=Politics ScreensaverTap into the power of The Situation Room. Download this powerful new tool that keeps you posted on the latest political news from the campaign trail.
Download (4.1 MB, PC only)

Follow us on Twitter

CNN on TwitterGet Ticker updates the moment they appear online via the Web, SMS, or instant messages.
Follow politicalticker

Categories
CNN Comment Policy: CNN encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNN makes reasonable efforts to review all comments prior to posting and CNN may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNN the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNN Privacy Statement.
Home  |  World  |  U.S.  |  Politics  |  Entertainment  |  Health  |  Tech  |  Travel  |  Living  |  Business  |  Sports  |  Time.com
Podcasts  |  Blogs  |  CNN Mobile  |  Preferences |  Email Alerts  |  CNN Radio  |  CNN Shop  |  Site Map
© 2008 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress.com