In his New Yorker column this week, Hendrik Hertzberg reminds us how the old Sovietologist guard of the Cold War-era Republican foreign policy establishment have embraced the treaty, even as the current crop of GOP senators express reservations:

[S]ix right-of-center foreign-policy sages were invited to comment on the Nuclear Posture Review and New Start. George Shultz, President Reagan’s Secretary of State, had praise for both. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary under George W. Bush; Fred C. Ikle, a Reagan defense official; and James Schlesinger, President Nixon’s Secretary of Defense, offered criticisms so mild they might have been mistaken for lukewarm support. Richard Burt, who negotiated the first Start treaty for Reagan, wrote, “The Obama Administration’s nuclear posture review, together with the new Start treaty with Russia, will strengthen American security and reinforce the nation’s global leadership.”

What, no Rice?

So I contacted Rice’s assistants at Stanford University and learned that the former secretary and national security adviser hasn’t issued any statement so far and isn’t granting interview requests at the moment. Far be it for me to speculate why that is, but it seems odd that she wouldn’t wish to express a perspective on a subject firmly within her wheelhouse.

“Based on my personal experience,” writes Rice in the press release, “I know Carly is the best person to send to Washington to advocate for the people of our great state in the Senate.” Fiorina: “I had the privilege to work with Secretary Rice when I served on the State Department’s Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy, and I have great respect for her.”

“I think it’s unfortunate that these individuals are being criticized for their past representation, it reflects the politicization and the polarization of terrorism issues,” Bellinger said. “neither republicans nor democrats should be attacking officials in each other’s administration’s based solely on the clients they have represented in the past.”

“We’ve had a longstanding tradition in our country for lawyers to represent unpopular causes, and they shouldn’t be attacked for doing so,” Bellinger added.

Who knew George W. Bush hired so many traitors! Can’t wait to see the Keep America Safe ad attacking Bellinger.

First he criticized Obama’s “apparent” decision not to continue personal video teleconferencing with the Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan and Gen. Raymond Odierno in Iraq, an arrangement Cohen said served President George W. Bush during the surge. Then he said Obama’s decision to create “special envoys” for a variety of tasks left a bad taste in his mouth, since it wasn’t clear to whom they report — “the president, the secretary of state” — and what institutional bureaucratic support they actually command. Then came the crescendo.

Obliquely referencing the leaked McChrystal review as the “events of this week,” Cohen said bringing disputes about “strategy” into the public had “real impact” — deleterious impact — for events “on the ground,” since friends, enemies and undecideds “all watch CNN.” And now, Cohen intimated but did not say directly, they’d question Obama’s “commitment” to Afghanistan.

Cohen’s comment could be interpreted as criticizing the leaker, since it wasn’t the Obama administration that handed McChrystal’s review to Bob Woodward. But his emphasis on public “strategy” disputes appeared to be aimed at Obama, who told “Meet The Press” that he wouldn’t add troops until he’s convinced his Afghanistan strategy is correct, a comment that’s led to much speculation about whether Obama has counterinsurgency “buyer’s remorse.”

Marcy digs through the IG report and unearths what the report calls “an undated and unsigned document” that “expanded” the use of those techniques “beyond the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah.” The document, entitled “Legal Principles Applicable to CIA Detention and Interrogation of Captured Al-Qa’ida Personnel,” has never before been disclosed, and it was apparently written, according to the report, by the CIA’s Office of General Counsel, but “fully coordinated” and “drafted in substantial part by OLC,” the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. An excerpt, dealing with the legality of specific techniques, reads:

The use of the following techniques and of comparable, approved techniques does not violate any Federal statute or other law, where the CIA interrogators do not specifically intend to cause the detainee to undergo severe physical or mental pain or suffering (i.e., they act with the good faith belief that their conduct will not cause such pain or suffering): isolation, reduced caloric intake (so long as the amount is calculated to maintain the general health of the detainees), deprivation of reading material, loud music or white noise (at a decibel level calculated to avoid damage to the detainees’ hearing), the attention grasp, walling, the facial hold, the facial slap (insult slap), the abdominal slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, the use of diapers, the use of harmless insects, and the water board.

Marcy’s emphasis. Notice that this language, including the parentheticals, appears verbatim in Tenet’s guidelines for both “standard” and “enhanced” techniques from Jan. 23, 2003. Tenet’s “Standard Techniques”:

Among Standard Techniques are the use of isolation, sleep deprivation not to exceed 72 hours, reduced caloric intake (so long as the amount is calculated to maintain the general health of the detainee), deprivation of reading material, use of loud music or white noise (at a decibel level calculated to avoid damage to the detainee’s hearing), and the use of diapers for limited periods (generally not to exceed 72 hours), [REDACTED]

Tenet’s “Enhanced Techniques”:

These techniques are, [sic] the attention grasp, walling, the facial hold, the facial slap (insult slap), the abdominal slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation beyond 72 hours, the use of diapers for prolonged periods, the use of harmless insects, the water board, and such techniques as may be specifically approved pursuant to paragraph 4 below.

Again, we don’t know when the memo was written — by design, as it’s undated and unsigned, a gigantic blinking red light. A footnote on page 22 of the report indicates that it was attached to a document delivered, apparently, to the inspector general’s office on June 16, 2003. That’s as close as we get to an answer as to the document’s provenance. But the language contained within it appears to be the wellspring for Tenet’s “standard” and “enhanced” interrogations — and apparently the CIA’s general counsel helped write the rules the agency’s personnel would operate within. Attorney General Eric Holder’s new probe is an implicit argument against the wisdom of that decision.

A question that remains unanswered: why did Tenet, the CIA’s general counsel and OLC evidently believe that forcing someone to wear a diaper for “72 hours” should be a “standard” interrogation technique and any longer should be an “enhanced” one?

Perhaps. But according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s declassified narrative on torture, Rice, as national security adviser in 2002, was the highest-ranking Bush official to approve torture as a “policy” matter. That approval came on July 17, 2002, before the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel gave its legal imprimatur to the torture of Abu Zubaydah. Now, people change their minds all the time, so maybe that’s what happened to Rice, particularly as she became secretary of state and saw what the international outcry from Abu Ghraib meant for U.S. diplomacy. But that’s conjecture. How did the Rice of 2002 evolve into the Rice of 2005 on the issue?

I asked Zelikow after the hearing ended, but he was circumspect. “I did not interrogate Dr. Rice about anything she did in the first Bush administration,” he replied. But he said it would be “useful to find out how the [CIA interrogation] program was understood” by Bush administration policymakers, adding that his experience suggested it was “sold incrementally” to them. The implication — sympathetic as it is to Zelikow’s former boss — is that Rice may not have fully understood what CIA Director George Tenet was asking her to approve.

From their letter, which they sent to the secretary on April 30:

We write seeking access to an important State Department memorandum necessary for the Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation of the role Justice Department lawyersin approving interrogation practices of the former Administration. This document may also shed significant light on the role played by State Department experts in the interagency process that led to the implementation of these practices, a matter of substantial interest to the Foreign Affairs Committee and its Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight.

If only I had a gavel.

Rice took the question in stride. First, she said she was reluctant to criticize Obama. “I will not agree with everything they do, and I won’t agree with everything they say,” she said. “But the worst thing about being in government is that people outside government who don’t have to deal with the daily struggles you do, and aren’t trying to solve really difficult problems, are just sitting out there commenting and criticizing, particularly people who’ve just been in government. That’s really unfair. So for the time being, if I disagree, I will keep it to myself.”

I know, I know. The real victims here are the former Bush officials who have to endure an endless litany of bad-faith criticism from, like, citizens. Remember: they whipped the Savior up the hill that morning. Draw strength from the example, Ms. Rice. (Sorry, Doctor Rice.)

Then she got to the heart of the question. “Let me just say that President Bush was very clear that he wanted to do everything he could to protect the country. After Sept. 11, [2001,] we wanted to protect the country,” she said. “But he was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country.”

She added: “I hope you understand that it was a very difficult time. We were all so terrified of another attack on the country. Sept. 11 was the worst day of my life in government, watching 3,000 Americans die. . . . Even under those most difficult circumstances, the president was not prepared to do something illegal, and I hope people understand that we were trying to protect the country.”

And I was trying to drive safely home, officer, and never intended to plow my car into that schoolyard full of fourth-graders. We can debate whether I should have had those drinks before getting behind the wheel, but my lawyers informed me that there were interpretations of the law under which everything I did was legal, and in any event my trusted friend told me that even before my lawyers gave me that advice I should go warm up the car. This is a time to look forward and not backward. And I might add that you weren’t even at the bar when we were making these plans.