Philosoraptor on Rice, Bush, and Torture
Winston Smith of Philosoraptor gets it exactly right in his analysis of Condoleeza Rice’s interview by Wolf Blitzer over the weeked: Rice, torture, evasion.
An excerpt:
What follows might sound a bit cynical, but it isn’t. I’m not cynical, I’ve just learned that we can’t trust this administration to shoot straight and tell the truth. If they don’t answer a question directly, they’re almost certainly trying to mislead us. If they sound like they might be bullshitting, they’re bullshitting.
Note that Blitzer asks Rice a direct question:
Did the president of the United States authorize what some might call torture against certain suspected terrorists being held by the United States?
Rice does not answer this question. Instead, she says:
Wolf, what the president authorized was that everything would be done within the international treaty obligations and within U.S. law. Those were determinations made by the Justice Department. That’s the guidance that he gave, and that’s the guidance that he expected people to follow.
Blitzer asks whether Bush authorized torture, and, instead of answering that question, Rice changes the subject slightly, asserting that everything Bush authorized was legal. We could give many administrations the benefit of the doubt here, but we’ve learned only too well that this is not such an administration. The fact that Rice refused to say ‘no’ means that, in all probability, the answer is ‘yes.’ That is, it strongly suggests that it is likely that the president of the United States, George W. Bush, did authorize the use of torture against helpless prisoners in the custody of the U.S.
Setting aside my ideological agenda as best I can, I don’t see any holes in the logic. The Bush supporters who’ve been questioning my objectivity in the comments here lately will insist that the truth really isn’t all that clear, but they’re wrong. It is clear. It is completely, shockingly transparent.
June 16th, 2004 at 10:03 am
Sounds about right. Combine that with the likely white-lie BS around the JD memo on how torture was legal if ordered by the Executive. (Did Bush not “see” that memo, “read” that memo, “hear” that memo quoted, etc.)
Is this the question of what the definition of “is” taken to an extreme?
June 16th, 2004 at 5:14 pm
How many career politicians give a one-word answer when fifty can be used instead?
You’re a pretty sharp guy John, so I’m thinking you didn’t try all THAT hard to put aside your ideological mindset! I can see a very loaded question, due mostly to its vagueness, and understand why that response was given by Rice.
“What SOME might call torture”???? Who are those “some”? An authority on the Geneva Convention Codes? An expert on how the laws on the proper treatment of war prisoners can be, and have been, fudged to still stay technically within acceptable grounds? Your average man-on-the-street? A looney tin foil hat conspiracy nut? A person who doesn’t have the heart to kill a fly? “Some” people will eventually consider ANY form of interrogation to be torture.
Wouldn’t it have been more direct to say, “Did the President authorize torture and abuse that would be a violation of the Geneva Convention regulations?
So, because she didn’t give a one-word answer to a slippery question, Bush obviously and knowingly gave his consent to torture? THAT is the stunning line of logic that can only lead to Bush’s guilt as a war criminal? THAT is the “shockingly transparent” conclusion?
If I’m so delusional that I just can’t see this seriously damming evidence of Bush’s direct guilt, then I guess it’s time to self-check myself into the local mental health facility!!
By the way, I’m not even going to get into the phrase “certain suspected terrorists”!!!
June 17th, 2004 at 7:18 am
I don’t really think you can be mad at the question if the answer is just as vague ;)
June 17th, 2004 at 2:26 pm
I think you’re both right. It was a vague question, poor interviewing on Wolf’s part (or excellent interviewing, if his goal was to allow ‘outs’ for his interviewee), and good ducking on Rice’s part. He should have certainly stated more directly what it was he wanted to know. I think its fairly common knowledge that the Justice Department was instructed to hole hunt in the Geneva Convention, but the thing to press now is if Bush was directly aware of the hole hunt.
June 17th, 2004 at 2:52 pm
Okay, I agree w/ js, so that puts us pretty much all in agreement, except one thing. It’s quibbling. The interchange was also an opportunity to answer the question in any manner desired. The fact that the question was not more pointed, does not disallow Rice from answering and elaborating in a manner that puts Baby Bush in the best light. If her answer, is the best answer for the administration, well, that too presumably tells us something.
The fact that any answer was possible, makes it fair game to analyze the answer given in that light.
The question: Did the president of the United States authorize what some might call torture against certain suspected terrorists being held by the United States?
The answer: Wolf, what the president authorized was that everything would be done within the international treaty obligations and within U.S. law. Those were determinations made by the Justice Department. That’s the guidance that he gave, and that’s the guidance that he expected people to follow.
Why was that answer, and yes, I think it’s legally evasive, chosen? When in fact, the oppportunity provided the possibility of endless for an infinite universe of answers that would have provided more information to the public.
I think the choice of answer remains fair game…
June 17th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
Okay, I agree w/ js, so that puts us pretty much all in agreement, except one thing. It’s quibbling. The interchange was also an opportunity to answer the question in any manner desired. The fact that the question was not more pointed, does not disallow Rice from answering and elaborating in a manner that puts Baby Bush in the best light. If her answer, is the best answer for the administration, well, that too presumably tells us something.
The fact that any answer was possible, makes it fair game to analyze the answer given in that light.
The question: Did the president of the United States authorize what some might call torture against certain suspected terrorists being held by the United States?
The answer: Wolf, what the president authorized was that everything would be done within the international treaty obligations and within U.S. law. Those were determinations made by the Justice Department. That’s the guidance that he gave, and that’s the guidance that he expected people to follow.
Why was that answer, and yes, I think it’s legally evasive, chosen? When in fact, the oppportunity provided the possibility of an infinite universe of answers that would have provided more information to the public.
I think the choice of answer remains fair game…
June 17th, 2004 at 8:33 pm
“be done within the international treaty obligations and within U.S. law”
This says, “and” not “or”
As much as I dislike Bush and the current administration, torture _IS_ against U.S. law. This response points more towards Bush’s innocence than his guilt — though I personally believe he said something similar to “do what it takes” at some other point.
June 17th, 2004 at 8:43 pm
Okay, I agree w/ js, so that puts us pretty much all in agreement, except one thing. It’s quibbling. The interchange was also an opportunity to answer the question in any manner desired. The fact that the question was not more pointed, does not disallow Rice from answering and elaborating in a manner that puts Baby Bush in the best light. If her answer, is the best answer for the administration, well, that too presumably tells us something.
The fact that any answer was possible, makes it fair game to analyze the answer given in that light.
The question: Did the president of the United States authorize what some might call torture against certain suspected terrorists being held by the United States?
The answer: Wolf, what the president authorized was that everything would be done within the international treaty obligations and within U.S. law. Those were determinations made by the Justice Department. That’s the guidance that he gave, and that’s the guidance that he expected people to follow.
Why was that answer, and yes, I think it’s legally evasive, chosen? When in fact, the oppportunity provided the possibility of an infinite universe of answers that would have provided more information to the public.
I think the choice of answer remains fair game…