As ThinkProgress has repeatedly highlighted, former attorney general John Ashcroft likes to dismiss the seriousness of the Bush administration’s harsh interrogation techniques when he’s out of Washington and the public glare.

For example, speaking at the University of Colorado in November 2007, Ashcroft caused an uproar when he said Guantanamo Bay was a “good place” for detainees. He also claimed that he would be willing to be waterboarded. More recently, on April 21, Ashcroft joked about waterboarding to an audience at St. John’s University:

Going to a high school dance, having to listen to loud music, to me that’s torture. I was on the Daily Show once. I was interviewed by Jon Stewart. That was torture.

Spurned by all the negative media attention, Ashcroft is now keeping his mouth shut. At an event yesterday at Denison University in Ohio, Ashcroft refused to discuss waterboarding and made only vague statements about torture, tempering his usually aggressive support for Bush’s policies:

Questioned by Green and another student about approving the use of “waterboarding” by the CIA for interrogation of prisoners, Ashcroft, a former Missouri U.S. senator, said, “I haven’t made a statement about waterboarding. I didn’t make one at Knox College (where he spoke last week) and I’m not going to make it here.” [...]

On torture, Ashcroft said, “Torture, for legal purposes, is what Congress says it is. Within the law there are times when there will be different interrogation techniques used. Various interrogation techniques make sense. Torture is not legal in the United States, as defined by Congress.

Ashcroft now faces a subpoena threat from House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) to testify about his role in the administration’s approval of torture.

Once student also asked Ashcroft how he sleeps at night, in light of some of the policies he has supported. “I sleep at night because I believe the protection of American liberty is the number one job we have,” replied Ashcroft.

McClatchy reports that it was “reliably informed” that when the State Department releases its annual report on terrorism — expected later this week — it will “show no big increase or decrease in the number of terrorist attacks worldwide last year.” McClatchy added that while there was a “decline in attacks in Iraq” in 2007, there was “an increase in Afghanistan.”

Yesterday, two former employees of embattled contract company KBR told a congressional panel that some of their coworkers frequently stole money and artwork from Iraq. One said that “some of her American colleagues doing construction work in Iraqi palaces and municipal buildings took woodcarvings, tapestries and crystal ‘and even melted down gold to make spurs for cowboy boots.’” Another said that “a KBR foreman tried to take military equipment, including two rocket launchers, detonators and ammunition.” Two weeks ago, the firm was awarded a $150 billion, 10-year contract for work with the U.S. Army.

It seems the GOP youth vote problems extend to Jenna Bush, who’s not ready to commit to McCain:

I know some conservatives think George W. Bush’s inevitable convention speech is bound to be a disastrous reminder to America that McCain represents continuity with Bush, but maybe she’s one voter her dad can persuade.

In February 2003, just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Army Gen. Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. would need “several hundred thousand soldiers” to secure Iraq. Two days later, then-deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz dismissed Shinseki’s prediction saying it was “wildly off the mark.”

Yesterday, during a discussion of fellow war architect Douglas Feith’s new book “War and Decision,” Wolfowitz acknowledged he was “clueless on counterinsurgency” regarding troops levels after the fall of Baghdad. But he still contends that Shinseki was wrong, saying that a “sensible counterinsurgency strategy” would have involved more Iraqi forces, not Americans:

WOLFOWITZ: I think a sensible counterinsurgency strategy would not have been to flood the country with 300,000 Americans, but rather to build up Iraqi forces to be able to protect the population much more quickly.

Watch it:

However, “General Shinseki was right,” as Gen. John Abizaid admitted last year. Indeed, back in February 2003, Shinseki specifically noted that the number of troops he recommended would be used to prevent an insurgency and civil war — or what he called “post-hostilities control” and discouraging “ethnic tensions.”

Wolfowitz’s theory about a “sensible counterinsurgency strategy” ignores one key point: The U.S. did not have to “build up Iraqi forces” after the invasion because they were already there. Instead Iraq viceroy L. Paul Bremer III ordered Iraqi forces to be disbanded shortly after he took over governing Iraq.

Placing blame on others for the war’s failures is typical of those responsible for starting it. By claiming that the lack of Iraqi – not American – forces is what failed to quell the insurgency after the invasion, Wolfowitz is just another in a long series of war architects that simply cannot accept their role in the “disaster” that is President Bush’s foreign policy.