Forgive me, I’m a little slow to this, but I had to comment on Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s exchange with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week. And now I’m glad I waited because it gave me a chance to more thoughtfully consider my remarks.

The subject of torture has dominated the news this week after the Obama administration released memos detailing the waterboarding of so-called high-value suspects like Khalid Sheik Muhammed, characterized by the 9/11 Commission as the architect of the 2001 terrorist attacks. Some critics have accused the president of releasing the information for political reasons. I hardly think so. Reports are that he agonized over it for weeks and argued with top-level advisers pro and con on the release of the information.  Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be anything in the reaction to this news that has made the president’s life easier. The left and the right have their blood up over it with left-wingers calling for special prosecutors and investigations and right-wingers slamming Obama for dwelling on the past and spurring partisan fights. Where’s the advantage in all this? Moreover, it was a response to the Freedom of Information Act lawsuits demanding the documents. The administration had to make a choice: Fight this all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court or just capitulate. Obama appears to have decided it’s better to just air the dirty laundry and hope the storm cloud eventually moves on.

But is that storm cloud instead spinning into a tornado that will wipe out everything in its path?

That remains to be seen. But on Wednesday you could see the hackles rising as Clinton testified before the Foreign Affairs Committee. Rohrabacher, following up on former Vice President Dick Cheney’s comments earlier in the week that Obama ought to release CIA documents indicating the waterboarding achieved its aim and helped authorities stave off a terrorist attack, asked Clinton if she would consider declassifying more of the interrogation memos.

You can see the whole exchange here, but here’s a breakdown of the juicy part:

“It won’t surprise you that I don’t consider him to be a particularly reliable source of information,” Clinton said, flicking off Rohrabacher like a gnat and drawing some giggling in the gallery.

Not surprisingly, this sarcasm raised Rohrabacher’s ire.

“Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific question,” he said. “Dick Cheney has asked that specific documents be declassified. I didn’t ask you what your opinion is of Dick Cheney, and if you want to maintain your credibility with us, what is your opinion on the release of those documents?”

“I think we should get to the bottom of this entire matter,” she replied. “I think it’s in the best interest of our country and that is what the president believes and that is why he’s taken the action he’s taken.”

Rohrabacher was gaveled at that point as he ran out of time, but later he said in prepared statements:

“It is unconscionable that the Secretary of State called into question former Vice President Dick Cheney’s integrity. She stretched her own credibility to the limits by suggesting the information about interrogations was not made available to her during her tenure as a sitting senator on the Armed Services Committee. That was a huge issue at that time. Her refusal to indicate support for the declassification of documents that gives context and greater insight into the interrogation decisions is a bad oment concerning the openness of this administration.”

Nice try, congressman. But I think that strains credibility. You’re forgetting that Obama released the information that set off the debate in the first place. I understand Rohrabacher’s position that he wants all of the information released, not just some documents. I appreciate that. But even he ought to admit this is a start and is a far cry more than what the previous administration did. On the other hand, Rohrabacher became a fierce critic of Bush as well for his own Cone of Silence.

Still later, Rohrabacher issued another statement Wednesday:

If this administration wants a bipartisan approach it has got to stop attacking the character of former VP Cheney and release documents that demonstrate their commitment to transparency and accountability. This administration is willing to disclose documents that will politically hurt the Bush administration but refuse to release documents that demonstrate interrogation techniques, now being criticized, were essential in thwarting a 9/11-style terrorist plan against Los Angeles. Potentially, thousands of American lives were saved.”

Right after the sharp exchange between Rohrabacher and Clinton, the calls started flooding into the congressman’s office. When Rush Limbaugh talked about it the calls really flooded in. According to his spokeswoman, Tara Setmayer, the vast majority of the calls were positive. So Rohrabacher struck a nerve with his supporters.

But I would hope that he and others, no matter their partisan stripe, would not take this opportunity to score political points, something that Rohrabacher appears to be criticizing in his public statements after his dust-up with Clinton. Still, Rohrabacher has been known to make light of this very serious issue. Remember his repeated use of the word “panties” last year during a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee when discussing the alleged torture of suspected terrorist detainees in Guantanamo Bay? He equated the placing of women’s underwear on the heads of the detainees to “hazing pranks.” Hardly. It’s a form of extreme humiliation in that culture and, therefore, is torture, in my view and the view of most experts.

And here’s Rohrabacher in his own words in a “That’s Debatable” question for the Pilot that ran Nov. 8, 2007:

“Waterboarding in and of itself is not torture. It may create a sense of panic, but it’s not physically harmful. Obviously if it’s practiced on an innocent person, then those responsible should be held accountable for the mistake.

However, the waterboarding of a terrorist to protect thousands of innocent Americans who would otherwise be killed if information to prevent an attack wasn’t obtained, should be applauded.

We should be grateful we’re able to get this information from terrorists in order to protect our families.”

The debate over waterboarding represents a serious time for soul-searching for this country. Did we go too far after 9/11 or did we do what was necessary to protect us from another attack of that magnitude? These are worthy debates. I think waterboarding is indeed torture and as Fox News’ Shepard Smith so eloquently put it this week, we’re Americans and we don’t torture — ever. No matter what. Yes, it’s true that our enemies have no such scruples and will strive to kill us in whatever Machiavellian fashion they can, but the day we resort to their tactics is the day we rip up the Constitution and form our own Taliban. George Washington wouldn’t have tortured his enemies. Only a fool would think otherwise.

And, I would argue, I don’t think torture — even when it does win valuable information — does make us safer. It provides fuel for the extremists to propagandize against us, and, many experts will tell you, just compels the subject to tell you whatever you want to hear.

Waterboarding damaged the country’s international reputation, making it harder for us to form the kinds of coalitions needed to combat these roaming, lawless gangs of killers. Therefore, it made us less safe. This debate we’re having is a painful one — like the difficult conversation you have with a loved one after a particularly nasty disagreement — but if we do it right we’ll come out the other end of it stronger in our commitment to the principles of our forefathers.

(P.S. That terrific cartoon in this post was drawn by our great former political cartoonist Steve Bolton. I conceived the idea with him one night while brainstorming ideas).

Bookmark to: