Bush's Feeble Torture Dodge

President Bush's attempt on Friday to bat down the renewed furor over his secretive and brutal interrogation policies was profoundly empty of meaning -- and utterly ineffective.

Bush once again denied that his administration has engaged in torture, even as more evidence emerged that he continues to sanction behavior that most people would call just that. He wrapped himself in the flag and mobilized the rhetorical straw men, but offered not one new reason why anyone should believe him.

It's worth parsing his words carefully. Here's the transcript of his remarks, inserted into what was originally supposed to be a briefing solely about the economy.

Bush: "There's been a lot of talk in the newspapers and on TV about a program that I put in motion to detain and question terrorists and extremists. I have put this program in place for a reason, and that is to better protect the American people. And when we find somebody who may have information regarding an -- a potential attack on America, you bet we're going to detain them, and you bet we're going to question them -- because the American people expect us to find out information -- actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That's our job."

Nobody, of course, is suggesting that the government shouldn't detain or interrogate legitimate terrorist suspects; the question is whether or not it should torture them -- an issue Bush then dealt with cursorily.

"Secondly, this government does not torture people. You know, we stick to U.S. law and our international obligations."

By now, Bush's insistence that "we don't torture" has become a perverse tautology: It doesn't mean that we don't torture; it just means that if we do it, he doesn't call it torture. (See Jon Stewart and John Oliver, quoted below.) And was Bush asserting some sort of hairsplitting distinction between obligations and laws?

"Thirdly, there are highly trained professionals questioning these extremists and terrorists. In other words, we got professionals who are trained in this kind of work to get information that will protect the American people. And by the way, we have gotten information from these high-value detainees that have helped protect you."

But evidence of the success of harsh interrogation techniques is hard to find. Bush's insistence in February 2006, for instance, that CIA interrogation thwarted an Al Qaeda attack on Los Angeles was quickly downplayed by intelligence officials. And what little investigative reporting I've seen suggests that harsh interrogation has produced little to no valuable information -- certainly none that experts say couldn't have been obtained through traditional means.

"And finally, the techniques that we use have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress. The American people expect their government to take action to protect them from further attack. And that's exactly what this government is doing, and that's exactly what we'll continue to do."

But those members of Congress say they have not been fully briefed on the Bush policies.

And as for what the American people expect? Well, I think they expect their government not to engage in torture.