Bill Clinton set a trap for Democrats, and nobody fell harder than his wife

[GaryC 7]

WASHINGTON - Bill Clinton set a trap for Democrats, and nobody fell harder than his wife.

The former president, a self-styled "New Democrat" who added muscle to his party's foreign policy image in the 1990s, spoke hypothetically a year ago about a narrow exception for his opposition to torture.

The quote backfired on the Democratic presidential field Wednesday night, exposing the candidates to soft-on-terrorism charges and forcing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge a policy flip-flop.

That's certainly not what the former president had in mind when he appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" in September 2006.

"... Every one of us can imagine the following scenario: We get lucky, we get the number three guy in al-Qaida, and we know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is," the former president said.

"Don't we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him?" He said a president, in the rarest of cases, could make exceptions to anti-torture rules.

Debate moderator Tim Russert, host of "Meet the Press," read the quote to Clinton's wife and other Democratic candidates during Wednesday's debate.

Mischievously, he didn't reveal who said it. It was a setup.

Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in this kind of situation?

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware: "No, I would not."

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois: "American cannot sanction torture."

Sen. Clinton: "As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy. Period."

Like Obama, the New York senator said she doesn't deal in hypotheticals. "I think it's dangerous to go down this path," she said.

But her husband had already trod that hypothetical path.

"Well," Clinton chuckled when Russert revealed his source, "I'll talk to him later."

The fact is she agreed with her husband not so long ago. This is what she told the New York Daily News last October:

"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 also said: "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."

Her spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said Thursday that she has changed her mind.

"Upon reflection and after meeting with former generals and others, Senator Clinton does not believe that we should be making narrow exceptions to this policy based on hypotheticals," he said in an e-mail.

Let's review:

• Sen. Clinton was for some torture before she was against it.

• A president could waive international treaties for a "very, very limited" hypothetical circumstances in 2006, but hypotheticals are "dangerous" in 2007.

This was not a shining moment for Sen. Clinton.

Her primary argument for the nomination is she has the experience to lead, and yet her years in the White House didn't square her position on torture with her husband's view.

It took a few former generals to do that.

No matter who wins the nomination, Republicans may be able to use this week's debate to portray Democrats as weak on defense. You can almost hear them now: "Even President Clinton thinks his nominee should be tougher on terrorists."

It's true that most experts say extreme force is not an effective way to get information, and many others would argue that the United States has a moral obligation to stand for something better.

Still, you wouldn't even consider torture to save millions?

It may be that the Democratic candidates on Wednesday were pandering to liberal activists who tend to dominate the nomination process. But if that's the case, they abandoned the pander path when it came to Iraq.

Clinton, Obama and former Sen. John Edwards risked the wrath of anti-war voters when they conceded they cannot guarantee they would pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," Sen. Clinton said of Iraq. "We do not know, walking into the White House in January of 2009 what we are going to find."

Exactly right, senator.

Pray that you don't find a ticking timebomb and an al-Qaida leader upon your hypothetical return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_po/the_clinton_trap_1

[one...two...tree 2,762]

She was awesome right there! She just scored points with me.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

She got owned for sure.Wow! Denial is a great disinfectant.

[William33 110]

America needs to do "anything necessary" to protect itself. In fact, these activities described, occur overseas regularly.

Is that the same as doing it ourselves? Who really cares, if the Intel received protects Americans? In the worldwide perspective,” national” perspectives need to change.

We must plan for success.

[GaryC 7]

America needs to do "anything necessary" to protect itself. In fact, these activities described, occur overseas regularly.

Is that the same as doing it ourselves? Who really cares, if the Intel received protects Americans? In the worldwide perspective,” national” perspectives need to change.

We must plan for success.

While I don't think we should pull the fingernails out of anyone we suspect of being a terrorist I also don't have a problem with kicking the snot out of someone we know for sure has a plan in motion to kill Americans. If a few bruises will save lives then I say go for it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

America needs to do "anything necessary" to protect itself. In fact, these activities described, occur overseas regularly.

Is that the same as doing it ourselves? Who really cares, if the Intel received protects Americans? In the worldwide perspective,” national” perspectives need to change.

We must plan for success.

While I don't think we should pull the fingernails out of anyone we suspect of being a terrorist I also don't have a problem with kicking the snot out of someone we know for sure has a plan in motion to kill Americans. If a few bruises will save lives then I say go for it.

Well, as it stands right now, if it's between Giuliani and Hillary, I'm leaning toward Hillary...and you can quote that one too. It's gonna be a horse race for the next 13 months.

[chri'stina 190]

I watched the last half of the debate, and the part I saw I thought Hillary did a very bad job of answering the questions. She seemed to dodge giving answers IMO.I thought Obama, Edwards, and even Biden did better jobs of actually answering the questions asked. She kept saying how "we" did this and that, referring to her and Bill while he was president. I thought he was president then, not her? And all we will hear if she is pres is "my husband did this so great and Bush ruined it so now another Clinton has to fix it..." I don't like the sound of 4 Presidents in the order of a Bush, a Clinton, a Bush and then a Clinton. It's time for a new last name. I really do not want Hillary to win the democratic nomination(though she probably will) and do not want her to be Pres.

[no name 1]

America needs to do "anything necessary" to protect itself. In fact, these activities described, occur overseas regularly.

Is that the same as doing it ourselves? Who really cares, if the Intel received protects Americans? In the worldwide perspective,” national” perspectives need to change.

We must plan for success.

While I don't think we should pull the fingernails out of anyone we suspect of being a terrorist I also don't have a problem with kicking the snot out of someone we know for sure has a plan in motion to kill Americans. If a few bruises will save lives then I say go for it.

Well, as it stands right now, if it's between Giuliani and Hillary, I'm leaning toward Hillary...and you can quote that one too. It's gonna be a horse race for the next 13 months.

Somebody needs to change their siggie!

Edited September 28, 2007 by devilette

[GaryC 7]

America needs to do "anything necessary" to protect itself. In fact, these activities described, occur overseas regularly.

Is that the same as doing it ourselves? Who really cares, if the Intel received protects Americans? In the worldwide perspective,” national” perspectives need to change.

We must plan for success.

While I don't think we should pull the fingernails out of anyone we suspect of being a terrorist I also don't have a problem with kicking the snot out of someone we know for sure has a plan in motion to kill Americans. If a few bruises will save lives then I say go for it.

Well, as it stands right now, if it's between Giuliani and Hillary, I'm leaning toward Hillary...and you can quote that one too. It's gonna be a horse race for the next 13 months.

Somebody needs to change their siggie!

To late, he said it and the quote stays.