A conservative lawyer on Bush's foreign policy

The New York Times has a fascinating article about Jack Goldsmith, a conservative lawyer who resigned after nine months of working for the Office of Legal Counsel during 2003 and 2004.

During the 2004 Presidential debates, Kerry kept claiming that he was actually the "conservative" candidate, which made some sense in the context of issues like the Bush administration's torture policies, and the debate over realist foreign policy vs. neoconservative pollyannaism, but probably confused more voters than it won over. Goldsmith's new book, "The Terror Presidency," looks like a good primer on why the legal underpinnings of Bush's foreign policy are more radical than conservative. Excerpt:

Several hours after Goldsmith was sworn in, on Oct. 6, 2003, he recalls that he received a phone call from Gonzales: the White House needed to know as soon as possible whether the Fourth Geneva Convention, which describes protections that explicitly cover civilians in war zones like Iraq, also covered insurgents and terrorists. After several days of study, Goldsmith agreed with lawyers in several other federal agencies, who had concluded that the convention applied to all Iraqi civilians, including terrorists and insurgents. In a meeting with Ashcroft, Goldsmith explained his analysis, which Ashcroft accepted. Later, Goldsmith drove from the Justice Department to the White House for a meeting with Gonzales and Addington. Goldsmith remembers his deputy Patrick Philbin turning to him in the car and saying: “They’re going to be really mad. They’re not going to understand our decision. They’ve never been told no.” (Philbin declined to discuss the conversation.)

"Conscience of a Conservative" [New York Times]