The President’s new budget, due out shortly after the State of the Union address, will likely sweep the knee of one the main conservative arguments against the START treaty and efforts to cut nuclear weapons in general.

One of the central arguments of conservatives opposed to arms control is the bogus notion that the US shouldn’t cut its nuclear forces because the existing nuclear arsenal is “deteriorating” and is increasingly unreliable. In a December letter to the President, all 40 Republican Senators plus Senator Joe Lieberman told the President that they could not support a START treaty unless the reliability of the US nuclear weapons could be assured. These arguments conveniently overlook the recent independent scientific study from the JASON advisory group – this is essentially the gold standard of nuclear studies. The study found that the nuclear arsenal was in fine shape and would continue to be, as long as current modernization programs were adequately funded. JASON essentially killed conservative rationale for a new warhead.

However, the study did point out some areas for improvement in maintaining reliability. An op-ed yesterday by George Schultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn argued similarly that some additional measures should be taken to ensure the continued efficacy of our nuclear labs and nuclear stockpile. Conservatives might have tried to hang their hat on these points – using them as reasons to block arms-reduction efforts like the START treaty. But it appears now that the Administration’s new budget will take dramatic steps to address the concerns of the JASON study and of the four horsemen, thereby assuring the reliability of the US nuclear arsenal and the irrelevance of any new nuclear warhead. In what looked like a certain degree of coordination, Vice President Biden issued a statement following the four horsemen op-ed saying:

These four statesmen have shown us the path to improved security by urging us to do all we can to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to strengthen the nonproliferation regime, while maintaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal. Their vision has inspired our efforts and we will continue to be guided by their contributions. As we pursue the vision President Obama laid out in Prague last April, release our new budget in February… people will see the consensus we have sought translated into action.

In other words, the White House heard the recommendations of the four statesmen and is going to follow through on their recommendations. After all the Vice President’s office wouldn’t highlight the op-ed if it was going to ignore its recommendations. Furthermore, the Albuquerque Journal reported this past weekend that:

The Obama administration is preparing to ask Congress for a 10 percent increase in the U.S. nuclear weapons budget, according to an internal memo. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s budget for nuclear weapons research, development, maintenance and manufacturing would rise to 7 billion in 2010, up from $6.38 billion this year, according to a Dec. 22 memo from Energy Secretary Steven Chu to the Office of Management and Budget.

By increasing spending on nuclear maintenance efforts, the President’s budget insures the US nuclear arsenal will remain reliable well into the future. Hence, conservative arguments that we can’t cut nuclear weapons because our arsenal is not reliable just have no basis in reality.

One of the most tragic legacies of the Bush administration was its authorization of brutal and ineffective harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects that were tantamount to torture. One technique that President Bush admitted that he personally authorized was waterboarding, which involves the simulated drowning of a suspect.

Yesterday, former Bush speechwriter and conservative author Marc Thiessen appeared on CNN’s Amanpour and defended the previous administration’s interrogation policies. During one point during their exchange, Thiessen attacked host Christiane Amanpour for a segment she did in 2008 noting the parallels between Bush’s use of waterboarding and waterboarding techniques used during the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia and during the Spanish Inquisition:

THIESSEN: There have been so many misstatements told about the enhanced interrogation techniques, comparing them to the Spanish Inquisition, to the Khmer Rouge. And I have to tell you, Christiane, you’re one of the people who have spread these mistruths.

AMANPOUR: Excuse me?

THIESSEN: I’m sorry. You went to S-21, the Khmer Rouge prison [...]

AMANPOUR: Yes, and we saw the waterboarding there that they used as a torture technique. That’s called spreading the truth! [...]

THIESSEN: We did not submerge people in a box full of water. [...]

AMANPOUR: That is called waterboarding, you can say in whichever way you want! [...] You’re trying to obfuscate the debate here. [...]

THIESSEN: It’s nothing like what the CIA used.

Watch it:

As David Corn notes, there wasn’t “much difference between the Bush administration’s interrogation policy and the techniques used by the Khmer Rouge.” In 2006, a journalist e-mailed Corn a photograph of a painting done by a former Khmer Rouge prisoner depicting the torture he was subjected to, which shows interrogators pouring water on the suspect’s face — exactly what was authorized by President Bush:

In the past year, former Bush administration speechwriter Marc Thiessen has made a name for himself as the most visible and forceful defender of the Bush administration’s adoption of torture as a tool of interrogation of alleged Al Qaeda detainees. The main part of his strategy for defending torture has been to deny that the methods used don’t actually amount to torture, and to insist on the term “enhanced interrogation” for techniques such as waterboarding that were specifically developed by torturers as a method of torture.

Appearing on Christiane Ahmanpour’s program on CNN International, Thiessen shows how his argument has simply devolved into farce:

AHMANPOUR: Do you support torture?

THIESSEN: It’s not torture.

AHMANPOUR: I know you don’t call it torture –

THIESSEN: It isn’t torture.

AHMANPOUR: — the extreme pain, the “enhanced interrogation” techniques –

THIESSEN: There’s no extreme pain. There have been so many so misstatements told about the enhanced interrogation techniques, comparing them to the Spanish Inquisition and the Khmer Rouge, and I have to tell you Christiane, you are one of the people who have spread these mistruths.

AHMANPOUR: Excuse me?

THIESSEN: I’m sorry. You went to S-21, the Khmer Rouge prison, with Van Nath, who’s one of the survivors —

AHMANPOUR: Yes, and we saw the waterboarding there, which they used as a torture technique. That’s called spreading the truth.

THIESSEN: No, no, no, let me read to you what you said. It’s from CNN’s website: “I stared blankly at another of Van Nath’s paintings. This time a prisoner is submerged in a life-size box full of water, handcuffed to the side so he cannot escape or raise his head to breathe. His interrogators, arrayed around him, are demanding information. I asked Vann Nath whether he had heard this was once used on America’s terrorist suspected. He nodded his head. ‘It’s not right.’” That is completely false.

AHMANPOUR: That’s false?

THIESSEN: We did not submerge people in a box of water.

AHMANPOUR: Excuse me a second, that is called waterboarding.

THIESSEN: No it’s not!

AHMANPOUR: You can say it in whichever way you want.

Watch it:

Interestingly, Thiessen insists that “there’s no extreme pain” in waterboarding only moments after reiterating his “real Muslims require torture” argument, which is the idea that jihadist prisoners require a certain level of pain in order to fulfill their obligation to Allah before they can spill the beans about all of their plans. So Thiessen has revealed either that the level of required jihadist pain is not extreme, or that he’s misstating the facts.

If you watch the video, you’ll notice that while Thiessen is making what he apparently believes is a devastatingly clever point about how the CIA never used the “life-size box full of water” method of water torture, the camera pans over this picture — also painted by Vann Nath, and also hangs in in Cambodia’s Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum — which is more like the version of water torture used by the CIA:

But (as far as we know right now) Thiessen is right: The CIA did not submerge people in a box of water. Point scored! The CIA did, however, use a different method of water torture also used by the Khmer Rouge. What was Thiessen’s point again? Oh yeah, to waste people’s time arguing over whether a technique developed by torturers as a method of torture should really be called torture when employed by the United States. And, to the extent that people continue to be willing to have him on their programs to have this nonsense argument, he’s having a lot of success with that.

Following the election of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, many progressives are wondering what his victory means for the progressive agenda. Immigration reform is being identified as an issue that will attract bipartisan support and give lawmakers a chance to show the country that they can work together on an issue and achieve results.

Today, at noon, Wonk Room’s Andrea Nill will be discussing the policy, politics, and prospects of progressive immigration reform in 2010 on a panel being led by Nico Pitney, National Editor of The Huffington Post with introductions by Think Progress’ Faiz Shakir. The event, which is being co-sponsored by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, America’s Voice, and Netroots Nation, will also feature panelists Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga (Kos), Founder and Editor of Daily Kos, and María Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) will kick off the event with opening remarks.

Watch it live here: