Now, I think this whole issue is taken as a proxy for the question, "how much will be protect us?" And law and order is a big principle in the GOP. But wasn’t this weird?
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he would support "enhanced interrogation techniques … but not torture."
Isn’t that just equivocating? "I’m against torture and for it." I understand the "do whatever it takes" answer. I understand McCain’s answer. In general, as the article notes, everyone agreed that torture was bad, but they tried to defend the "enhanced interrogation technique". That position just doesn’t make sense to me.
Now, Romney was much clearer when he talked about doubling the size of Guantanamo.
1 Comment
neil · May 16, 2007 at 10:25 AM
You can’t blame them for equivocating on this point, it seems. They’re in between a rock and a hard place. Obviously, they can’t say that Bush has been committing torture and that they would put an end to it — the base would never stand for the repudiation. The candidates can’t say they’re in favor of torture, either (because of fear of elite opinion; polls indicate that the base would have their back).
So they have to reiterate the Bush line — we don’t torture, so therefore, anything we do isn’t torture.
Comments are closed.