Last fall Hillary Clinton changed her position on torture. She said, “As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period.” That’s straightforward and consistent with American ideals, even in a perilous world.
The previous year she had said, “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 called it a “very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances.”
She was slammed by Barack Obama for having taken that initial position.
Two points.
First, what’s wrong with changing your mind, especially after getting military input? As if there were no precedent for presidential candidates changing, indeed, routinely overhauling, multiple positions to accommodate the politics of the moment.
Second, maybe she, ironically, shouldn’t have changed at all.
Maybe just fine-tuned a more appropriate response. To wit:
“If I, as president, were ever confronted with a situation where we have a detainee – and not some low-level dragnetee – who we know – not just suspect – has knowledge of an imminent – not indeterminable — threat to millions of Americans, then you can rest assured that I would do what most Americans would want their president to do: err on the side of millions of American lives. And then be prepared to take whatever heat is generated.”
Candor has to count for something.