Bush’s bombshell: I broke the law

This story should be as big as the midterms, but it won’t be. The U.S. media long ago determined that George W. Bush’s transgressions have ceased to be newsworthy. One of the reasons is that the Obama administration made the disastrous decision not to investigate Bush. That cop-out allows Bush to freely admit he approved torture:

Human rights experts have long pressed the administration of former president George W. Bush for details of who bore ultimate responsibility for approving the simulated drownings of CIA detainees, a practice that many international legal experts say was illicit torture. In a memoir due out Tuesday, Bush makes clear that he personally approved the use of that coercive technique against alleged Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an admission the human rights experts say could one day have legal consequences for him.

In his book, titled “Decision Points,” Bush recounts being asked by the CIA whether it could proceed with waterboarding Mohammed, who Bush said was suspected of knowing about still-pending terrorist plots against the United States. Bush writes that his reply was “Damn right” and states that he would make the same decision again to save lives, according to a someone close to Bush who has read the book.

Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said, “Waterboarding is broadly seen by legal experts around the world as torture, and it is universally prosecutable as a crime. The fact that none of us expect any serious consequences from this admission is what is most interesting.”

M. Cherif Boussiani, an emeritus law professor at DePaul University who co-chaired the U.N. experts committee that drafted the torture convention, said that Bush’s admission could theoretically expose him to prosecution. But he also said Bush must have presumed that he would have the government’s backing in any confrontation with others’ courts.

Georgetown University law professor David Cole, a long-standing critic of Bush’s interrogation and detention policies, called prosecution unlikely. “The fact that he did admit it suggests he believes he is politically immune from being held accountable. . . . But politics can change.”

The disparate threads of 2009/2010 politics come together in this admission:

First, it reminds us how radical Bush really was and why America recoiled in disgust, lurched left and elected a Democratic president.

Second, it highlights the irresponsibility of the press, who should be blasting this on every front page. Remember, the media still has agenda setting power and tells the public what matters.

Third, it bring into stark relief the political and moral tone-deafness of the Obama White House. If you can’t hold an American president accountable for breaking the law on a matter as grave as torture, then you have no moral authority — and questionable political acumen.

Fourth, it explains why someone like Sarah Palin can get elected president.

Fifth, it is yet another vindication of the progressive community, whose warnings about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bybee, Yoo, Rove, Rice, Ashcroft, etc. have proven to be prescient.

The final insult is that it takes Darrell Issa to threaten investigations of Bush while Democrats mope around after their midterm drubbing: