WASHINGTON » In 2002, not long after President George W. Bush named him the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, Chris Christie emphatically and unexpectedly denounced torture as a means of gathering evidence.

"I cannot believe, given the history of this country, that no matter what the threat to our country that we would forsake our protection of liberties to the extent that we would advocate torture as a way of getting evidence," he said then. Adding, "You have to be coolheaded in times of crisis to be able to not go too far."

But Wednesday, Christie, the New Jersey governor and potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016, was hardly eager to revisit the torture issue. Among top-tier candidates in both parties — including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jeb Bush – he had company in his reticence.

Most of the major presidential candidates have not plunged into Washington’s debate over the Senate Intelligence Committee’s withering report on the CIA’s brutal interrogation tactics — and some are ducking questions entirely, illustrating the delicate politics of national security.

One senator who did agree to talk, Marco Rubio, R-Fla., criticized the public release of the Senate report but also decried torture as an interrogation technique. Asked specifically about the use of waterboarding and rectal feeding, which were both documented in the report, Rubio said he did not want to discuss "specific methods," but suggested he did not support such practices, noting that they have been discontinued. "And I’m not advocating that we continue those practices."

But Rubio struck the same theme as many in his party, condemning the report and its release for being "conducted in a way that was partisan and unfair." Releasing it, he said, "puts in danger the lives of Americans."

Few would-be candidates want to be seen as defending torture, particularly in the aftermath of the graphic techniques depicted in the Senate panel’s findings. At the same time, Republican candidates in particular do not want to be seen as soft on fighting terrorism. The report puts one Republican, Bush, in an especially unenviable position because it resurrects the most controversial policies of his brother’s administration.

For Clinton, the challenge is different: She must balance her desire to be seen as tough on national security against pressure from her party’s liberal wing to not only condemn the gruesome tactics but also punish those involved. The report provides an opportunity for potential Clinton challengers to stake out a position to her left — and one Democrat, Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, took it.

While Clinton has previously said she did not want to see the officials who conducted the interrogations prosecuted, O’Malley, in an interview, called on the Justice Department to name a special prosecutor to investigate.

"I think there needs to be some accountability so this doesn’t happen again," he said.

The likely Republican candidates and their advisers recognize that their party base still has a hawkish impulse when it comes to terrorism, especially given the warnings that the publication of the report could prompt new threats on Americans.

"Look at the polling, and elected Republicans pretty much reflect where their constituents are: largely supportive of the CIA program with little interest in the details, a small minority opposed as a matter of principle, but no one shedding any tears for the terrorists who got roughed up," said Michael Goldfarb, a neoconservative strategist.

Yet Christie’s refusal to weigh in — the governor said in a brief interview that it would not be "responsible to comment" on a report he had not read — irritated Goldfarb, who said in a post on Twitter that the governor was "irresponsible" in avoiding questions Wednesday about the interrogation methods.

For presidential hopefuls outside Washington, there is little upside in commenting, said Kevin Madden, who advised Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee. Romney did not comment. Three other Republican governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John R. Kasich of Ohio — also declined to comment on the report.

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, issued a statement calling the report "a highly partisan attack on the previous administration" that "puts Americans at grave risk as it fuels propaganda efforts of radical Islamic terror groups and sympathizers already trying to destroy our nation."

But among senators who might run for president, there was more pressure to respond, Madden said, because it is "part of their day-to-day job."

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Wednesday delivered a blistering attack on President Barack Obama’s foreign policy — while linking Clinton to it. "Today, the consequences of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy is that our friends no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us," he said in remarks prepared for a speech at The Heritage Foundation.

Of the likely Republican candidates, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., may have the most difficult balance. Approached outside his office Wednesday, he would not answer questions. Paul’s libertarian-leaning followers disdain the aggressive Bush-era national security policies, but the Kentuckian has been careful on foreign policy to not appear as out of the Republican mainstream.

The awkwardness of his position was on display after the report was released Tuesday. Speaking to Politico, he said, "I think we should not have torture," and he generally praised government transparency, but questioned whether releasing gruesome details would be " beneficial or inflammatory."

Bush, the former Florida governor, last week gave a speech calling for a more assertive and muscular U.S. foreign policy, but has not spoken out on the interrogations. His silence on the report stands in contrast to his quick response on Facebook to Obama’s executive order on immigration.

Clinton has been nearly as quiet. Her memoir from serving as Obama’s first-term secretary of state included only a single sentence on torture, and the words "torture" and "interrogation" are not in the index. In remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations over the summer, however, she called for the release of the report, saying, "The American people deserve to see it," but also noted that she opposed prosecuting "people who were doing what they were told to do."

Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., who describes himself as a Democratic socialist, denounced the tactics described in the report and said in an interview that he was especially disturbed by the Senate panel’s conclusion that the CIA misled the White House and Congress about them. "If anyone is lying to elected officials, they should be fired immediately," he said.

Jim Webb, the Democratic former Virginia senator, was more cryptic. He posted on Twitter about the report, posing questions: "Were these acts individual, institutional, or national policy? Did intelligence committee use its oversight power?"

© 2014 The New York Times Company