I never thought I'd say this...
but watch Fox News Sunday tomorrow. Fox bamboozled Clinton into thinking they would do an interview with him about the $7 billion he has raised for his charitable foundation. Instead, they ambushed him with a "Path to 9/11"-style question asking him why he didn't do more to get Bin Laden. Fortunately, Clinton was sharp enough to turn the question back around - not only on Fox, but also on his hypocritical GOP critics.
This looks like one of those interviews that people from all over the political spectrum will be talking about for weeks, so catch it on YouTube if you can't catch it on Fox.
Here's a link to a transcript of the interview from ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/22/clinton-fox/
And a brief preview clip of the interview. Ignore the tabloid-esque title of the YouTube page (if I were Clinton, I'd have freaked out too):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ&eurl=
Have a good weekend, folks.
posted by cacambo at 9:38 PM
14 Comments:
Looks like old Billy boy bitch slapped Foxnews. All I can say is it's about time.
7:22 PM
I think it's long past time either Sundog or Cacambo make their voices heard on this awful torture bill that looks ready to pass.
Hello? Anyone out there?
12:36 PM
I don't do issue advocacy. I know, it's a cop-out, but my strong suits are strategy and analysis.
4:49 PM
I think you're missing a larger point there, cacambo. Not doing any issue advocacy is in itself a strategy. And a losing strategy at that.
Who cares if issue advocacy isn't your strong suit? We're not talking about obscure emission regulations or royalty taxes, we're talking about some fundamental moral concepts. You need only be human to speak on those. Why can't you see the difference between arguing for a higher CAFE(sic?) standard and arguing against torture?
Regardless of your skill set, are you saying you can't even muster up an argument against torture and unjustified, unlimited imprisonment? Or is it because your strong suits are elsewhere, you're afraid to make arguments against torture and unjustified, unlimited imprisonment? Wow.
If Democrats want to win the trust of voters, which is the essential component to winning elections, they need to stop talking about how to win elections and start talking about what they believe in- other than winning elections.
In other words, instead of talking about trust, Dems need to be trustworthy. Being trustworthy starts with describing and acting on fundamental, moral beliefs. Unless and until Dems employ that "strategy," voters will never trust them.
Cacambo, your brand of Democrat has lost, badly, for the last 20 years. It's time to stop hiding from issues, damn the torpedoes, and start taking stands.
I know, I know, standing up and speaking out against torture is soooo "risky" and must be avoided at all costs, even when a commentor calls you out on it. "Ooh, don't oppose torture, you might alienate the Marquis de Sade demographic!"
Great moral stand there, cacambo, I'm just all sorts of warm and fuzzy about those "principled" Democrats now. I definitely want to go volunteer and contribute to Dems who are too afraid to speak out against torture!
Yuck.
12:27 PM
Here's a nice little summary of the effect the Netroots are having on the Democratic Party.
Tell me again how opposing Joe Lieberman (which the Netroots overwhelmingly does) hurts the Democratic Party?
5:32 PM
First, I don't know enough about the issues to speak on them knowledgably. So from where I'm standing now, it would be irresponsible for me to speak about it. I've heard one or two reports on NPR about it while driving back from law school. But the legal issues (spanning federal law, international law, and treaties), exact methods being used, and circumstances under which they are imprisoned are all insanely complex issues, as you must realize.
I frankly don't have the time right now to teach myself about it, and refuse to write about such an emotional topic unless I feel I fully understand it. I understand political strategy already. All I have to do is read the polls and reports and apply my existing knowledge. I don't have the time for much more.
I probably will do plenty of advocacy when I'm out of law school. But right now, I'm spending 12 hours a day studying. So don't scold me for daring to stick to the things I can do well in the time I have.
11:29 AM
Oh, and you have no idea what brand of Democrat I am. Just because I leave the task of issue advocacy to those who are better at it than I am - at least while I lack the time to research the issues - hardly makes me a bad Democrat or somehow promoting a "winning elections is all that matters" brand of Democrat. We need both people who do issue advocacy AND people who do strategy. Having one without the other would be suicidal.
Right now, I'll do my strength (strategy) and let more-qualified and knowledgeable people handle the issues. Again, don't scold me for daring to do what I'm good at.
6:37 PM
cacambo said:
First, I don't know enough about the issues to speak on them knowledgably. So from where I'm standing now, it would be irresponsible for me to speak about it. I've heard one or two reports on NPR about it while driving back from law school. But the legal issues (spanning federal law, international law, and treaties), exact methods being used, and circumstances under which they are imprisoned are all insanely complex issues, as you must realize.
I think that says it all right there. You don't think you know enough about torture to take a stand on it. You need to know more about this specific torture bill before you will speak generally on your (presumed) opposition to torture. Or perhaps, even worse, you think some kinds of torture are ok, and want to make sure those are the only kinds allowed in this bill.
Based on your comments, you probably see nothing wrong with that. I think Main Street voters, however, would be surprised and horrified to see that you (and many Dem senators) decline to even speak generally on something as visceral, emotional, and moral as torture. Next you'll be saying that you want to know more about Mark Foley's actions before you'll talk about sexual predators.
I understand that you, like the rest of us, have a life to lead and responsibilities to take care of. But remember that I didn't come here in the immediate aftermath of the torture compromise- I cajoled you to speak on it a week later, after plenty of experts had reviewed and spoken about it.
If you don't want to get into the details of the bill because you don't know enough, that's fine. Knowing the specifics of the legislation, however, isn't a prerequisite to say something like "although the effect of this bill seems unclear, I believe that torture is wrong and immoral, and if there's even a chance that this bill allows some forms of torture, Dems should oppose it with all their might."
What if, instead of in law school, you were advising a candidate on this issue? Would you have told him/her to say "I need to study the legislation a little more before I'll comment on it...?" My God, do you not understand that voters recoil at such cold, calculating behavior?
Not taking even a general position, especially on something like torture or imprisoning innocent people, is in itself a position, something that Dems fail to understand.
From a strategy perspective, it's that type of behavior that makes voters not trust Dems, and thus causes Dems to fail. If you want Dems to achieve more electoral success, and if you yourself want to go far in the party, you need to stop hiding from moral issues and values voters. Voters want their politicians to be principled, not just talk about how being principled can help win elections. Do you see the difference?
Perhaps not- as of now, a week and half later and on the eve of this bill passing, you've declined to even give a general position on torture. Twice. Such cop-outs on moral values gives me (and I dare say many others) pause.
It's too late now. You've already shown me how you feel about torture, by declining to speak generally about it, twice. How can you (and other Dems) ask voters to trust your (and other Dems') moral compass when you yourself don't trust it?
8:54 AM
Let me just make one more point by posing a hypothetical:
Is there any principle, issue, cause, etc. that, if legislation even hinted at threatening, you feel strongly enough that you would feel compelled and unashamed to speak about, even if you were not intimately familiar with the specific legislation?
If yes, what are those issues?
9:06 AM
Correction, the bill has passed. Its passage has been a foregone conclusion for so long that I didn't bother to check when it came up for vote.
1:19 PM
First off, of course I'm against torture. And of course I've always been against torture. And of course if this bill does allow Americans or anyone else to engage in actions that would be considered torture as that word is defined under the law, I would oppose such a bill without hesitation.
I will note, however, that you did NOT ask for my GENERAL position on torture in your first post. In fact, here was your very first post on the topic:
I think it's long past time either Sundog or Cacambo make their voices heard on this awful torture bill that looks ready to pass.
Your second post, I assumed, was meant to be in the same vein: Take a position on the bill. I don't know the bill at ALL, so I declined to do so. I still won't take a position on the bill.
One thing that I learned fast in law school is that you should never discuss a statute or case without first reading it. While I won't adhere to quite so strict a rule, I refuse to discuss a bill of which I only have only a cursory knowledge. And the first year of law school (which is usually, and fairly, compared to an 70- or 80-hour a week job) means that I don't have the time to gain such an understanding on the bill.
I would be more than happy to give you my verygeneral thoughts on whatever issue you want, without equivocation. That's not an issue. Nobody will applaud me if I say I'm against lynching and child abuse, because such general statements are obvious (and torture is no less abhorrent than those crimes, at least in my eyes).
But fine, if you want a list of my general views on some currently hot political issues, here they are:
- I am strongly against torture
- I am strongly against pedophilia
- I am strongly pro-gun control
- I am strongly in favor of taking steps to reduce greenhouse emissions
- I am against the war in Iraq
- I am in favor of the GWOT in general, and think we should increase our troop presence in Afghanistan
And some other general ruminations:
- I am strongly in favor of increasing funding for all levels of education
- I am strongly in favor of legalizing gay marriage and equalizing rights for all people of any sexual orientation
- I am pro-choice (although I think the legal reasoning of Roe v. Wade was deeply flawed, and should be replaced by a more coherent legal justification for abortion rights - and there are plenty available)
- I have mixed feelings on affirmative action
1:37 PM
cacambo, you're correct in pointing out that I was referring to the torture bill in my first comment. That was my bad, because while I was looking for conversation on the bill, I was also looking for conversation on torture, unjust imprisonment, etc., but I didn't make that clear. For that, I apologize.
It's not plausible, however, that you thought my second comment only referred to the specific torture bill. I mention "arguing against torture" five times. I mention "unjustified, unlimited imprisonment" twice. I mention "fundamental moral[s]" twice. Nowhere in the comment do I mention the "torture bill." This discussion moved past the bill after you said you weren't familiar with the specifics of it. I moved into why instinctively copping out on fundamentally moral issues hurts Democrats, and ironically you responded by (again!) instinctively copping out on a fundamentally moral issue.
cacambo said:
First off, of course I'm against torture. And of course I've always been against torture. And of course if this bill does allow Americans or anyone else to engage in actions that would be considered torture as that word is defined under the law, I would oppose such a bill without hesitation.
Third time's the charm, I guess, but at this point I remain unconvinced. After all, while you didn't know the specifics, for a little over a week the MSM obsessed on it, bloggers went nuts dissecting it, and (as we heard from you) NPR did a few segments on it- given the coverage, and given the pattern of dishonesty and bad faith by this Administration and Republicans, do you really expect me to believe you didn't hear enough to think there was a chance it could legalize torture?
Further, the mere concept of the bill should have alarmed you, knowledge of the bill notwithstanding. A President that resided over Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay wants "clarity" on the legality of "aggressive interrogation techniques" and "military tribunals," and you want to reserve judgment until you see the specifics?!? Again, yuck.
If you truly believe all forms of aggressive interrogation are counterproductive and immoral, then you really wouldn't have needed to see the details of this bill to know it was bad. This Administration doesn't have good faith (in legislation, arrests, interrogation, imprisonment, etc.), so giving them any leeway on interrogation or imprisonment is a horrible, horrible idea. Familiarizing yourself with the specifics wouldn't have changed that.
Are there some aggressive interrogation techniques that you don't consider to be torture? Based on how you've responded so far, I'm guessing yes. If so, then what techniques do you consider acceptable?
5:55 PM
After all, while you didn't know the specifics, for a little over a week the MSM obsessed on it, bloggers went nuts dissecting it, and (as we heard from you) NPR did a few segments on it- given the coverage, and given the pattern of dishonesty and bad faith by this Administration and Republicans, do you really expect me to believe you didn't hear enough to think there was a chance it could legalize torture?
Actually...yes. Aside from checking my blog, I have done almost zero blogreading for the past three weeks. I haven't watched TV news at all, and only drive to school twice a week, when I listen to NPR for about 20 minutes each way. And they made it sound like there were legit questions about whether or not the bill would allow methods that would be considered torture under either US law or the Geneva conventions.
That is the extent of my exposure on this issue. So you STILL overassumed how much I've heard about this issue.
Are there some aggressive interrogation techniques that you don't consider to be torture? Based on how you've responded so far, I'm guessing yes. If so, then what techniques do you consider acceptable?
I don't know what methods are being used. Seriously, I don't. You assume that there are some forms of "aggressive interrogation" that I would consider acceptable. Well, to quote countless annoyed parents - when you assume, you make an ass of u and me. You tell me a method, and I'll tell you whether I think it's acceptable. The only specific method I've heard about is waterboarding, and I certainly don't think that is acceptable.
I think we should have some way of getting info out of suspected terrorists beyond politely asking them questions, as even the Geneva Conventions allow some sharp methods of interrogation (and I am familiar with the Geneva Conventions). But I also certainly don't think we should use torture, nor any methods that will induce them to say anything, just to make the procedure stop.
There's a line between the two categories. Name a technique, and I'll tell you whether I think it crosses it. But if you keep trying to play gotcha with me by trying to get me to speak in generalizations on an issue like this - where the specifics are what truly matter - I'll just turn off comments, because I don't want to keep this up with you unless you're interested in a meaningful discussion.
Sundog already left because the comments on his posts became inane. I'll have no problem doing the same. That's the first and only time I'll say that to you.
10:49 PM
cacambo, it's not personal with me. Believe me, if all I wanted to do was get in flame wars and play gotcha, I'd go to wingnut sites like LGF, Instapundit, or Michelle Malkin and push their buttons. I'm outraged, and perhaps I go too far, but what I really want to do is find issues that can unify liberals like me with moderates like (presumably) you.
I thought torture could be that issue. After watching Senate Dems and moderate blogs stay quiet, however, I was shocked and perhaps I took it out on you. That's not what I meant to do, and I'm sorry if I poked you too hard. If you're insisting that you didn't know enough to feel comfortable talking about this bill, then so be it, shame on NPR, and let's just move from there. (Unsolicited friendly advice, however: I don't think claiming ignorance on a topical political issue is a good way to attract people to a political blog. Not personal, just saying...)
Nevertheless, I still feel issues like this could unite us all, and as a bonus give us an edge with values voters in elections. I believe legislation like this, from a strategic perspective, provides an opportunity for Dems to build a better brand with voters, which is why I continue to hammer away at this.
You're right about the risk of assuming too much about legislation, but I feel in this climate, with this President, we have no choice. We have to assume bad intentions by this Administration, otherwise we'll be surprised at, ignorant of, and have no control over very un-American behavior. I believe that's where you and I disagree, because it seems you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to any legislation, even if it was drafted by this Administration.
cacambo said:
I don't know what [interrogation] methods are being used. Seriously, I don't.
None of us do, and the Administration won't tell. That's a very big problem that should alarm everyone, including you. Given Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and secret CIA prisons, I think it's safe for even you to "assume" bad things and push the panic button on legislation drafted by this Administration dealing with interrogation.
Look, the Administration claimed that Common Article 3 was too vague, and thus we must clarify where the line is so we don't cross it. Theoretically, they're right- the line between "torture" and "aggressive interrogation" is not immediately discernible. But did you ever stop and think, why would anyone want to come close to the line? What are we doing to these prisoners that we're even at risk of violating the Geneva Conventions? And why does this Administration repeatedly push for the power to do something that doesn't really help us?
That's why "clarifying" torture in legislation or (in our case) going through a checklist of some interrogation methods is worse than useless- it sends the message to the world that we're not fully committed to moral, humane treatment (even if it theoretically hinders our anti-terror efforts), and we're willing to push the envelope and harm our prisoners.
You don't think you would allow torture, but at the same time you say it would be okay to engage in "sharp" interrogation practices. You think there's a line that can be drawn between the two, but that's a myth- there isn't a clear line, there never will be a clear line, and the only thing we can hope to do is stay far, far away from the theoretical line.
You fail to understand (or just plain disagree) that any leeway, no matter how politely you phrase it, hurts our efforts and eliminates our moral authority. That's especially true given our recent history with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. Winning the WoT requires winning hearts and minds, and telling the world that, in the wake of Abu Ghraib et al, we're even a little bit ambivalent about torture will most certainly not win their hearts.
Perhaps the fundamental question we should ask ourselves is this: if we want to win the WoT, should our methods move closer to or further away from torture? I believe we should be making every effort to move away from torture, to the point that we don't need legislation to reassure ourselves that we're not torturing. President Bush, his cronies, and even you, by wanting to do more than "politely ask questions," however, believe we should be moving closer to torture. That is where we disagree.
If you have the time,
here's a good editorial providing perspective on why any permissiveness on torture has a horribly corrosive effect on the authorities that wish to do it. I urge you to read it (and note the date of the editorial). Also, as much time as we've spent discussing torture, let's not forget that Habeas Corpus itself is suspended in this legislation. As a budding lawyer, even hinting at restricting Habeas Corpus should horrify you.
What will aid our efforts while still winning their hearts? Ironically, what you describe as "politely asking questions" is in essence the most effective way to gain actionable intelligence from prisoners. Developing a relationship with the prisoners by not torturing is the only way to incentivize them to help us. Various CIA and FBI experts have already said that (latest article I could find is here). It also makes it easier for them to forgive us for falsely imprisoning them.
This legislation is so bad that we have eliminated one of the founding principles of America itself- resisting tyranny. I still believe that you and other Dems missed an opportunity to take a stand, even if it's a losing stand. This battle was lost from the beginning, but we missed an opportunity in the war, and for that I'm deeply saddened and ashamed.
9:52 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home