McCain-Rice 2008: 'To Torture or Not to Torture' Ticket
8 Comments Published by Augur on Thursday, April 10 at 11:28 AM.
The following was posted at the Huffington Post by Joshua Roman, a friend of Urbanagora:
New reports demonstrate that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice played a pivotal role in the approval of "enhanced interrogation techniques," which are, by any definition but the Administration's, torture. This comes shortly after reports of Rice spending the last few weeks aggressively seeking to become Senator John McCain's running mate. Together, these reports beg the following question: How could John McCain ask Condi Rice to be his running mate, when were she to succeed him, the U.S. would almost certainly engage in torture?
McCain's opposition to torture is far more than a political position. His opposition is elemental. It is seared in his mind and scarred in his flesh - a public morality born of private tragedy.
Following the outcry over Abu Ghraib, Rice was approached by CIA officials and asked for her support for the continued use of "enhanced interrogation techniques." According to the ABC Report, "Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: 'This is your baby. Go do it.'"
These discussions took place at a meeting of the Principles Committee, which included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Then-Attorney General Ashcroft, who is hardly a humanitarian, was so troubled by these discussions he asked aloud after one meeting "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
But how will John McCain judge Condi Rice's remarks?
"This is your baby. Go do it."
McCain has said, "only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror." How can he reconcile his statement with hers?
The answer may well be McCain sacrificing his morality to bolster his electability. We have already seen evidence of McCain picking political pragmatism over principle on this very issue. And his moral flexibility may give way if he buys into data like the new poll of NY state voters showing a McCain-Rice ticket ahead of a Democratic "Dream Ticket."
And the most important question of all: How will the Americans, and particularly independents, judge John McCain if he adds Rice to his ticket, despite her pivotal role in authorizing torture?
Labels: 2008, Condoleezza Rice, Joshua Roman, McCain, politics, republican politics, torture, Vice Presidential Candidates
It's funny that this story came out right as Rice and McCain were being discussed as a ticket, AND right as Colin Powell gave an interview indicating some possible support for Obama. I have a fantasy in my mind in which McCain makes a statement saying, "I had been thinking maybe Condi would be a good VP, but now that I am aware of her complicity in a war crime, I must rule out that possibility," as well as Obama making a statement saying, "I have respected Colin Powell for a long time, but given recent news, if he were to endorse me, I would be forced to reject and denounce his support."
I can dream, can't I?
I would have thought that those who favor Obama would ignore this story, as all it does it give attention to McCain. First off, Rice is not seen as bad as you think she is. During the height of the Iraq War unpopularity in this country, Rice still had a favorable/unfavorable ratio of 2-1. (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/03/17/080317taco_talk_hertzberg). The rabid liberals in this country don't like her because she was in W's cabinet, but the majority of the people in the country are not as unforgiving as those on this blog. So it wouldn't be that big of an anchor around McCain's neck, although one I think he could do without.
That being said, its not going to happen. I don't think Rice wants the job, as she said publicly on Tuesday. I think the guy who brought it up needed something to say on a Sunday morning talk show, and this was as good of a bit as any.
All this does is reinforce the following aspects of McCain. 1) He has the nomination while his democratic fellows are battling it out. 2) He is working on finding a VP that fits his goals and perspective, while his democratic opponent might have one foisted upon him by party powers. 3) Despite the "allure" of a dream ticket, the fact that there is evidence that it can be beaten in the staunchest of Blue States (New York) takes away the sense of inevitability for the Democratic ticket.
Thats all this was. Its a ploy to get McCain in the news for cheap. And it seems to be working.
"How will the Americans, and particularly independents, judge John McCain if he adds Rice to his ticket, despite her pivotal role in authorizing torture?"
For the political strategists here: How should the Democrats try to exploit this?
I think that it is harder to do than it would appear on its face at this point.
If democrats attack Rice they give McCain a moral opening for all the reasons listed in this post. If the dems go overboard by drawing connections between Rice and Bush policies, all McCain has to do is pick another candidate and it is rejection of Bush foreign policies and actions and the biggest bullet in the democratic gun has been neutralized. And all McCain would have to do is pick another candidate, any candidate, to fill the Veep slot, and any argument about McCain being Bush's third term is moot, because anytime it is raised, someone can chime in with a "he could have picked Condi." No one expects McCain to totally reject Bush, but by rejecting an overhyped Rice (who again, I don't think really wants the job) McCain establishes a new path.
The best thing for the dems to do is keep mum for now and wait for McCain to make a move. Any move at this point will backfire.
Besides, I thought Dems were all against preemptive action?
I would continually raise her involvement in torture, and line up experts saying it doesn't work. Play them off of each other - raise McCain's vote, and say he isn't as principled as he claims to be. Hit the perceived strength - he isn't a maverick who sticks with his resolve, he's John Kerry plus 30 years. If he flips on this, what can we trust him on, etc.
I wouldnt have the candidate do ti, but 3rd parties
I agree with augur. Prescott is complicating the point with all the VP stuff. The way to use this is to say, "Hey, remember when John McCain caved to the administration and allowed them to interpret the Geneva Convention however the hell they want? Well, turns out the administration took advantage of that power to the fullest extent possible and have undermined America's moral credibility in the world. That sure sucks, doesn't it?"
I didn't complicate the question. The original post was about Condi Rice as VP and HER record. McCain's vote on the Army Field Manual (which is what I presume you are talking about) will come up whether Rice runs or not and is a separate point. But attacking a candidate who has not only not been selected but has not stated publicly that she wants to run seems like a waste of time.
I agree with Prescott. McCain's going to have issues regardless and hitting him on Rice before she's taken the position is a waste. You don't want to hit a potential VP. If you do enough damage they'll just cross that name off their short list. Wait until they take the job, then hammer them. If it gets to the point where they have to drop out you hurt the ticket leader by making them look foolish and incompetent. By all means, feel free to come up with strategy just in case, but there's no point in getting into that just now. If McCain plays this right, he can milk the benign, soft-focus media love fest that is any and all coverage of St. John of Arizona for some time to come. All he has to do is drop another name and BAM! The media spends another day speculating about who's going to get the #2 slot. He gets the spotlight and the talk will be all about the name tossed out rather than McCain himself.
That said, she doesn't want the job. It's like with the left and Al Gore. There are those that want him in the race, talk about him getting into the race, but he does not want it. Ain't gonna happen.
Auger/Brian: McCain is going to get hit, assuming the Democrats start doing a proper job of this, over that vote regardless of who his running mate is. It could be the reanimated corpse of Mother Theresa (which would have the added advantage of making McCain look young and vibrant). He's still going to have to explain that vote.
Also, as much as I too would love it, I don't think you'll ever hear a Republican use the words "war crime." Hell, I don't even hear the Democrats using it all that often. Their whole defense of this disgusting conduct is that it isn't illegal. They have a note from their mother (John Yoo) saying so. "Please excuse my sons from attending the Hague. They have my permission to wipe themselves with the Constitution and ignore the Bill of Rights in the name of Freedom."