Since Friday, liberal blogs (here, here, here, here) have been buzzing with a 1997 gotcha statement Gingrich released on the visit of China's President Jiang Zemin.
In that statement, Newt said the following:
.... there is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions.
The Left's assumption is that Newt was against Chinese torture but not American torture.
This week Newt went "on the record" with Greta Van Susteren, and delivered a considerably more "nuanced" (some would say tortured) perspective.
VAN SUSTEREN: So it's -- OK, that's your code word. All right, now, waterboarding -- is that torture?
GINGRICH: I think it's something we shouldn't do.
VAN SUSTEREN: Should not do.
GINGRICH: Should not do. I've been very deeply influenced by John McCain, who was a prisoner, by Chuck Boyd, retired Air Force four-star general, who was a prisoner, and by Jim Jones.....
--Fast forward to after the commercial break--
VAN SUSTEREN: Mr. Speaker, it seems like right now in Washington, everyone's sort of, like, you know, diving for cover on this whole issue of waterboarding, torture, hearings, independent commission. Earlier today, you -- at least you were quoted earlier today. It says, "I think the White House should adopt a resolution that no documents relating to any of the briefings to the House should be destroyed until there's a thorough investigation." That what you said?
GINGRICH: Well, that specifically relates to the fact that Speaker Pelosi claims she wasn't briefed.... I think there's something outrageous verging on suicidal about placing this issue where it is. The Taliban is making progress in Pakistan, and may, in fact, break the back of Pakistan as a country. And that's a country with nuclear weapons. The Iranians have announced they have 7,300 centrifuges. They're building nuclear weapons. The North Koreans have fired a missile. They have nuclear weapons. In the face of that kind of danger -- Hamas every day tries fires -- tries to fire missiles into Israel. In the face of that kind of world, there are people in Washington who think the most important thing we can do is go back and find out whether non-lethal -- remember, these were all non-lethal activities. They have been tough...
VAN SUSTEREN: But you said a minute ago...
GINGRICH: ... but they weren't...
VAN SUSTEREN: ... that it was torture, waterboarding...
(CROSSTALK)
GINGRICH: No, I said it's not something we should do.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. Is it torture or not?
GINGRICH: I -- I -- I think it's -- I can't tell you.
VAN SUSTEREN: Does it violate the Geneva Convention?
GINGRICH: I honestly don't know.
VAN SUSTEREN: How about the Army Field Manual?
GINGRICH: Oh, it's different than the Army Field Manual. But remember, the Army Field Manual is designed to be used in the field by any soldier anywhere in the world.
VAN SUSTEREN: I'm just trying to understand where you stand on it.
GINGRICH: I think -- I think that there -- I am exactly where Senator McCain was. Senator McCain said there are very rare circumstances where extreme measures should be used, and those circumstances should be personally signed by the president as commander-in-chief. And a good example is if you pick up somebody who has planted a nuclear weapon in Washington or New York or Los Angeles or Atlanta and you're trying to find out in the next three hours where is the nuclear weapon, the president of the United States may well authorize remarkably tough measures because a hundred thousand or a half million lives are at stake.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is that your understanding of how it happened here? Because, I mean, frankly, there's so much confusion now because I -- it seems like everyone's sort of running for cover on this issue in terms of just trying to figure out, you know, who said what and did what and believed what, whether it's a good idea, bad idea. Everyone's running for cover on it.
GINGRICH: Well, it's a sad thing to watch President Obama crumble under pressure from his left. President Obama said publicly he did not believe anybody who was executing what they had been told were lawful orders -- the attorneys that the United States government used said these are lawful orders, so people engaged in defending the United States in the period of crisis immediately after 9/11, when there was a genuine fear that al Qaeda was trying to get a nuclear weapon. Now...
VAN SUSTEREN: Should lawyers be making that decision? I mean, lawyers...
(CROSSTALK)
GINGRICH: Lawyers have to make a -- you have to turn to somebody and say, Is this inside the law or not?
VAN SUSTEREN: Is it inside the law? I mean, that's (INAUDIBLE) Is it inside the law?
GINGRICH: I think -- I think it's debatable. Lawyers I respect a great deal say it is absolutely within the law. Other lawyers say it absolutely is not. I mean, this is a debatable area.
(ea) Full transcript here.
