Star Wars, the Sequel

But as Victoria Samson writes for the Center for Defense Information, a successful flight intercept test in September brought the missile defense agency's record to 7 for 13 -- a far cry from what Bush implied yesterday.

And the tests are, to be blunt, rigged. Samson notes that "during the last test before this one -- held in May, and of which this test was an exact replica -- the plug was pulled because the target didn't fly where they thought it was supposed to go; this indicates exactly how scripted the tests have become."

She adds: "Two intercepts by the operationally configured warhead . . . does not a dependable system make."

In a piece for NiemanWatchdog.org (where I am deputy editor) Samson writes: "What is truly galling is that this missile defense experiment by the United States is strictly that: an unknown, untested, brand-new system (the interceptor is still on the drawing board, even though U.S. officials claim that they can get the site up and running by 2011) which is supposed to defend against a theoretical and frankly inexplicable Iranian missile threat that also does not exist."

Torture Watch

As I noted briefly in yesterday's column, Bush also delivered a stunning rhetorical challenge to critics of his administration's harsh interrogation policies. Listing four attacks he said were prevented thanks to intelligence gathered in those interrogations, he said: "Those who oppose this vital tool in the war on terror need to answer a simple question: Which of the attacks I have just described would they prefer we had not stopped?"

But in a piece I wrote for NiemanWatchdog.org yesterday afternoon, I asked: What do we really know about these plots that Bush now says should be so central to the public debate over CIA interrogation techniques?

The answer is not much. But there's plenty of reason to be skeptical. I chronicle how Bush's previous claims about ostensibly thwarted alleged attacks (including the "Library Tower plot" he repeated yesterday) have been belittled by intelligence officials as overstated.

Furthermore, even if these attacks were indeed thwarted, couldn't they have been stopped with more humane and arguably more effective interrogation techniques?

And is the president -- who says we don't torture but refuses to define the term -- now reduced to arguing that the ends justify the means?

Waterboarding Watch

Philip Shenon writes in the New York Times: "All 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush's nominee for attorney general, on Tuesday for a clear-cut statement that the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, which simulates drowning and has been used by the C.I.A. against terrorism suspects, is illegal.

"In his confirmation hearings last week, Mr. Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York, declined to say if waterboarding was torture or was otherwise illegal; he insisted he was not aware of how the technique was carried out."

Talking Points Memo has a copy of the letter to Mukasey from the Democrats, which says: "Please respond to the following question: Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including treaty obligations?"