In what might be his final interview on Pravda Fox News, George Bush met with the immutably dyspeptic Brit Hume to discuss his legacy. (Seriously, Hume is the very apotheosis of acid reflux. I have no doubt that he’ll become the hangdog face of Prilosec OTC after he retires from Fox).
Anyway.
One of the subjects that Hume broached with the president concerned the administration’s use of what are politely called “enhanced interrogation” techniques. Hume calls it the “rough stuff”:
Brit Hume: Now, the enhanced interrogation techniques, as some call them — torture, as others call them– are being argued over to this hour. Some are saying you never get any good information by rough stuff, and others have said — more than once — that if we hadn’t used these techniques we wouldn’t have had vital information and attacks could have been or would have been carried out on this country. Your view of that.
The President: My view is that the techniques were necessary and are necessary to be used on a rare occasion to get information necessary to protect the American people. One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was the mastermind of the September the 11th, 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on our soil.
[. . .]
Brit Hume: Well, how badly would it hurt, in your view, if these enhanced interrogation techniques — that some call torture — were abandoned and made — and made — were not used?
The President: Yes, well, obviously I feel like it would be a problem because these are tools that we have in place. I do want to — you know, I firmly reject the word “torture.”
You see, it isn’t that Bush rejects subjecting individuals to endless and horrific experiences of such severity that they actually lose their minds — no, not at all. The deal is, you see, that he just doesn’t like calling it torture. He rejects that. It’s a semantics thing. Hey, that would make a good T-shirt.
Glad that’s all cleared up.