Patterico's Pontifications

4/26/2009

Waterboarding Worked, Part 3: The WaPo Falls for the Lazy Argument on the Timing Issue of the Library Tower Attack

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:56 am

Today’s Washington Post runs a story about the effectiveness of harsh questioning. I consider the key issue to be the CIA claim that waterboarding helped the U.S. stop an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles. Here is the WaPo on that issue:

A number of officials have questioned the viability of the plot in the wake of the changes in airport security after Sept. 11. And President George W. Bush, in a speech in 2007, said the plot was broken up in 2002, before Mohammed’s capture in Pakistan on March 1, 2003.

Let’s place to one side the laughable notion that we should be reassured by our wonderful airport security, and focus on the timing issue raised here. This lazy approach to the issue has been accepted at face value by Tim Noah, Andrew Sullivan, Radley Balko, and any number of other people predisposed to argue against the style of interrogation conducted by the Bushies.

But as I argued in this post, the timing does indeed work, because according to the memo that makes the claim, even after the initial plot was disrupted, there was a second cell devoted to the same murderous goal:


(Click to enlarge)

The existence of the other cell was documented in a Los Angeles Times article from October 2005, which typically downplayed the importance of arresting the cell because the plot was still in its early stages. (Apparently if we had stopped 9/11 in its early stages, that would not have been a notable success.)

According to the memo, when KSM was first questioned without the use of harsh techniques, he would say nothing about plots in motion other than: “Soon, you will know.” If Obama had his way, we would have learned about the Library Tower plot, not through waterboarding, but when it happened.

UPDATE: Marc Thiessen has an important update that is completely consistent with my analysis, and provides convincing detail on why Noah and Sullivan et al. are dead wrong about this. (h/t daleyrocks.)

64 Comments

  1. Patterico,

    Keep hammering the point that they all look like clowns and buffoons right up to the point that the bomb goes off (or the plane hits the building). That lesson has been learned repeatedly,but too typically (especially on the left) instantly forgotten.

    The boorish yammering about how nothing was “stopped” because the planing and ops hadn’t progressed far enough is, literally, fatal. It also demonstrates the dangerous fallacy of an after-the-fact law enforcement approach to national security threats.

    BTW, weren’t we promised Osama bin Laden on a platter within the first 100 days?…or is that just one more instance of Obama bin Lyin’?

    MikeN

    Comment by MJN1957 (6e1275) — 4/26/2009 @ 12:32 pm

  2. I’m very squeamish about torture or harsh interrogation tactics, but facts are facts, even when they’re inconvenient truths.

    Thank you for exploring another side of this issue that very few in the MSM take seriously.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 4/26/2009 @ 12:45 pm

  3. Something of an unbridgeable divide between the “busted Library Tower plot” synopsis and Stuart Taylor’s “typically thoughtful” analysis:

    “To be sure, the evidence in the public record is not conclusive. It comes mainly from Bush appointees and Central Intelligence Agency officials with records to defend and axes to grind.”

    It’s not made clear how far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got.

    Comment by steve (cae0bd) — 4/26/2009 @ 12:50 pm

  4. An offer – I am willing to be waterboarded an equivalent number of times to any future captives. Yes, I am certain it will suck, but if it is the only way to appease the hard left and protect the country, then do it.

    Comment by OmegaPaladin (3468f5) — 4/26/2009 @ 1:09 pm

  5. steve,
    Where exactly would you expect the public record on intelligence for 2000 – 2008 to come from, if not “Bush appointees and CIA officials?” Thanks for including that quote though. It really dispels that “liberal media” myth we hear about…

    Comment by carlitos (f022c4) — 4/26/2009 @ 1:11 pm

  6. Steve comes along and proves the points made quite concisely. Thank you.

    Comment by JD (e8f8ac) — 4/26/2009 @ 1:20 pm

  7. I agree. Excellent quote. Thanks, steve.

    Comment by danebramage (700c93) — 4/26/2009 @ 1:28 pm

  8. To be sure, those who dispute that the public record is conclusive are primarily liberals, who have axes of their own to grind with the Bush Administration, but no evidence of their own to dispute that public record.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/26/2009 @ 1:44 pm

  9. Dane – I was being uber-facetious.

    Daley – Their intentions are pure, therefore their ideological bias can be ignored. Sound familiar?

    Comment by JD (d206cd) — 4/26/2009 @ 1:47 pm

  10. I don’t see any of the ‘waterboarding is torture’ crowd signing a declaration that states:

    The US should never use waterboarding, even if it will prevent a future attack that will kill thousands of Americans.”

    Maybe they’d have a little more credibility if they’d make an affirmative declaration NOW about the future, instead of arguing about the past.

    Comment by liontooth (c6d5a7) — 4/26/2009 @ 1:50 pm

  11. The effort by the Cheneys and fellow travellers in the right wing blogosphere to roll out some semblence of rationale to justify waterboarding as not torture is following the same smoke and mirros pattern used to justify the war. It’s another 1+1=11 effort.

    Americans wont buy it this time. Cheney, Pelosi, Harmon, et al. Let the chips fall where they may.

    Get that $15 million from a publisher, Scooter, and do unto Dick like he did unto you.

    Comment by DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/26/2009 @ 2:05 pm

  12. If the attack on LA had succeeded, the first people in line for the instant renunciation of any and all potential suspect’s rights would be the uber Libs, along with their erstwhile Hollywood brethen. Because, after all, they live there.

    Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/26/2009 @ 2:17 pm

  13. Having to read the gasseous emanations from DuckCrap must surely be a violation of the Geneva Conventions, or whatever screed the UN has issued on torture.

    Comment by AD (9999da) — 4/26/2009 @ 2:24 pm

  14. Important update here that agrees with my analysis.

    I’ll update the post when I get home.

    Comment by Patterico (3aa5ef) — 4/26/2009 @ 2:43 pm

  15. I read your link, Patterico. Wow. I cannot think of a better example of how, to the Left, feelings are much more important than facts.

    Without any evidence—and, in fact, in the face of evidence to the contrary—those two chuckleheads have decided that they know what the jihadis will do. The jihadis, you see, are reasonable men, and think the way that Slate magazine and Andrew Sullivan wish them to think.

    They they do things, on record, in opposition to what Noah and Sullivan wish…and they still don’t see it…says it all.

    I guess the most important question is the jihadi stance on gay marriage.

    Comment by Eric Blair (33cc23) — 4/26/2009 @ 3:00 pm

  16. #9, JD wrote: “Dane – I was being uber-facetious.”

    I know you were, JD. I was responding more to carlitos, who pointed out how self-refuting steve’s quote is. It absolutely is. Hence, I think it’s a great quote to use against anyone who tries the “results were inconclusive” gambit.

    Comment by danebramage (700c93) — 4/26/2009 @ 3:23 pm

  17. “Americans wont buy it this time. ”

    What Americans don’t buy is the partisan politics by liberal Democrats trumping our national security.

    Americans believe Obama’s release of CIA memos endangers national security. The 58% majority is right. Obama, for purely political benefit purposes, released partial memos exposing the interrogation tactics used against Al Qaeda detainees. The consequence is to harm and limit our prosecution of the war on terror (a phrase President Obama will not use).
    http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-endagers-national-security-with.html

    Comment by Travis Monitor (cfa2f1) — 4/26/2009 @ 3:30 pm

  18. I think the discussion about waterboarding is a waste of time. Here’s how you get a Muslim terrorist to talk. Muslims don’t drink alcohol: make them. In no time, they’ll tell what you want to know. Simple. You’ve never had a friend tell you everything after a couple of beers at a bar? This probably won’t take more than one beer. Cost efficient. Even Ted Kennedy could understand that this enhanced interrogiation technique as “humane.” If that doesn’t work, well then drive them off a bridge into shallow water.

    Comment by Mike H. (8ed950) — 4/26/2009 @ 3:37 pm

  19. Even Ted Kennedy could understand that this enhanced interrogiation technique as “humane.”

    But there’s a…er…saturation point. I mean, Kennedy has put himself through this technique thousands of times. When does he tell the truth?

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 4/26/2009 @ 3:41 pm

  20. Kennedy has put himself through this technique thousands of times. When does he tell the truth?

    Outstanding!

    Comment by Machinist (c5fc28) — 4/26/2009 @ 3:46 pm

  21. “Kennedy put himself through this technique…”

    He’s saturated. Muslim terrorist are not.

    Comment by Mike H. (8ed950) — 4/26/2009 @ 3:52 pm

  22. What I fear is that these lefties have convinced themselves that, if there ever was a war against us, it’s over. The Financial Times girl on Stephanopolis’ show saying “America is at peace.” Then, she caught herself and you could see her decide that she needed to qualify that statement but it is what she believes. They don’t think there is any danger and it is all politics. Read a little bit about the French government in 1940. If there is a bad attack, like with a Pakistani nuke for example, Democrats will be running like cockroaches for cover.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 4/26/2009 @ 4:10 pm

  23. It’s not made clear how far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got.

    The fact is there was no attack, on anything, in the US after 9/11. Look at the hysteria from the left over the declassified memo about bin ladin determined to strike in the US and that Bush apparently should have declare martial law to stop. Of course in August of 2001, nobody imagined what al qaeda could do or what could be done to prevent the attacks.

    I can’t believe how stupid Obama is. He has released these memos and gone on record that he won’t pour water on a terrorist. When another attack occurs and there are 10,000 to 100,000 casualties, the the public is not going to hold Obama personally responsible?

    Comment by liontooth (c6d5a7) — 4/26/2009 @ 5:10 pm

  24. The liberals will point to all the dead bodies and say “See that! That’s because we were getting people wet and scaring them with caterpillars! It’s all Bush’s fault!” They will never admit the loss of security they required had anything to do with it.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/26/2009 @ 5:14 pm

  25. Sorry, posted this in the wrong thread.

    After years of attacking us every 14 months or so, one of the attacks came to fruition in the first year of Bush’s administration. After their greatest triumph, with so much of the Arab world cheering them on, there has not been a successful strike in the US in over eight years.

    We are repeatedly told by Democratic leaders and leftists that George Bush made us less safe but it seems to me he either earned the love and respect of the Muslim world or did one Hell of a job of keeping us safe. Obviously any future attack will be Bush’s fault.

    Comment by Machinist (c5fc28) — 4/26/2009 @ 5:29 pm

  26. Seven years. Damn.

    Comment by Machinist (c5fc28) — 4/26/2009 @ 5:30 pm

  27. #23 — very good point raised. Would liberals have applauded Bush for using waterboarding after the August 2001 PDB and before 9/11 if there was a known AQ operative in custody and the waterboarding had broken up the 9/11 plot and led to the arrest of all the 9/11 hijackers.

    Comment by WLS Shipwrecked (53653f) — 4/26/2009 @ 5:38 pm

  28. “It’s not made clear how far the plot to attack the World Trade Center ever got.”

    How nice it would be to live in a world where smug, clueless libs could say that. They’d still be assholes, but at least 3,000 Americans would still be living and breathing.

    Comment by Jim Treacher (796deb) — 4/26/2009 @ 6:40 pm

  29. Is there anything waterboarding can’t do? Why not start using it more widely in our criminal investigations?

    Comment by imdw (7ae49a) — 4/26/2009 @ 7:33 pm

  30. What the troll doesn’t acknowledge is that it was used on three terrorists and only after other methods failed. I know that was supposed to be irony or sarcasm or something but it just sound stupid.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 4/26/2009 @ 7:41 pm

  31. And its not like waterboarding is the only tool those memos addressed. There’s loads in there that could be used in the Madoff investigation, for example. Or the Stevens prosecutors. Or the AIPAC case, if that is your cup of tea. Heck I’m sure we can find some dirt on Murtha by setting these methods loose on his associates.

    Comment by imdw (c5488f) — 4/26/2009 @ 7:45 pm

  32. So letting the CIA use waterboarding on illegal enemy combatants under strict guidelines instead of a military tribunal and firing squad is the same as letting police use waterboarding on suspects. Under that premise it would seem that letting the military employ massive firepower in a military operation means we want to let the police go into bad neighborhoods preceded by an airstrike and an artillery barrage.

    Is there no comparison that stupidity can’t make?

    Comment by Machinist (c5fc28) — 4/26/2009 @ 7:53 pm

  33. Is there anything waterboarding can’t do?

    Comment by imdw — 4/26/2009 @ 7:33 pm

    Make people like you keep a brain in your head at the very sound of the word.

    Comment by Jim Treacher (796deb) — 4/26/2009 @ 8:05 pm

  34. Every time a Leftist is mendoucheous, a kitten gets waterboarded.

    Comment by JD (a7fa4a) — 4/26/2009 @ 8:48 pm

  35. You can’t pour in what was never there in the first place.

    Comment by AD (9999da) — 4/26/2009 @ 8:49 pm

  36. #34 JD:

    Every time a Leftist is mendoucheous, a kitten gets waterboarded.

    Well, keyboard is still clean…but I’m not exactly sure how to get the deviled ham out of my nose.

    Comment by EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/26/2009 @ 9:01 pm

  37. Thank you, EW1. I do my best.

    Comment by JD (a7fa4a) — 4/26/2009 @ 9:08 pm

  38. If Obama had his way, we would have learned about the Library Tower plot, not through waterboarding, but when it happened.

    In light of all the years that the guy listened to the “goddamn America” rantings of his former close advisor and spiritual guru — dripping with slap-back-at-the-US rhetoric — I wouldn’t put it past the guy now in the White House to treat such a scenario as a problem mainly because it would have occurred on his watch, and therefore impinged on his ego, and not anything beyond that.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 4/26/2009 @ 11:27 pm

  39. This is not the first time the WaPo has gone this route:

    EXAMPLE OF HOW THE PRESS LIES ABOUT TERRORISTS INTERROGATION:

    THE MSM LINE:
    Detainee’s Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
    Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads, Officials Say

    By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Sunday, March 29, 2009; A01
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html

    Here is an outstanding debunking by the same man that wrote the NRO article:


    THE TRUTH:
    The Post and Abu Zubaydah

    [Marc Thiessen]
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTEzMjc3YWU3ZmJiNzA3NThhNjdiMmY4MDkzNjRlMDY=

    The Left’s assault on the CIA program continues with today’s front-page story about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah: “Detainees Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots.” The story, like so many on this program, is rife with errors and misinformation.

    For example, the Post states:
    Abu Zubaida quickly told U.S. interrogators of [Khalid Sheikh] Mohammed and of others he knew to be in al-Qaeda, and he revealed the plans of the low-level operatives who fled Afghanistan with him. Some were intent on returning to target American forces with bombs; others wanted to strike on American soil again, according to military documents and law enforcement sources. Such intelligence was significant but not blockbuster material. Frustrated, the Bush administration ratcheted up the pressure — for the first time approving the use of increasingly harsh interrogations, including waterboarding.
    This is either uninformed or intentionally misleading.

    In fact, what Abu Zubaydah disclosed to the CIA during this period was that the fact that KSM was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and that his code name was “Muktar” — something Zubaydah thought we already knew, but in fact we did not. Intelligence officials had been trying for months to figure out who “Muktar” was. This information provided by Zubaydah was a critical piece of the puzzle that allowed them to pursue and eventually capture KSM. This fact, in and of itself, discredits the premise of the Post story — to suggest that the capture of KSM was not information that “foiled plots” to attack America is absurd on the face of it.

    The liberal attempt to rewrite history and ignore the facts that don’t fit their narrative is astounding here.

    The intel concerning this foiled plot is substantiated by our leading intelligence agencies ,and disclosed by none other than the Obama administration.
    We have yet to see one Official come forward and announce :

    …”the intelligence stated concerning the LA plot is now found to be false.”

    …”The intelligence does not support the conclusion of a plot being broken up due to the information derived from enhanced interrogation of
    Mohammad.”

    ….”Goss,Hayden,Tenet,Bush,and the CIA have all been found to be wrong concerning the intel and specifics concerning the LA Plot.”

    This intel was disclosed in the same memos that lay out the interrogation techniques that have liberals panties so up in a wad.
    So all that information is correct but the validated intel that doesn’t fit your narrative is
    somehow bogus.

    DAM# THE CATERPILLARS!!!!!

    You can’t have it both ways liberals.

    No,basically what we have is the liberal establishment “CREATING” a bogus timeline by distorting or leaving out facts all together in creating their narrative.
    It started at KOS,Huffington,
    made it’s way to Slate and Sullivan,
    and now is in the post pushed as news without “ANY
    REFUTATION OR CORRECTION ISSUED BY OUR INTEL SERVICES THAT STAND BEHIND THIS ASSESSMENT.

    That combined with the “opinion” that “al-qaeda would not have attempted an attack using another airliner”, is supposed to trump the “facts and statements of our leading intel agencies that this intel is spot on and correct.

    So in liberal land, their “opinion” and “ignorance of the facts” (suddenly terrorist don’t have networks and set up separate cells to carry out attacks) trump established and corroborated intel presented by the leaders in our intelligence agencies including the Obama administration.

    Liberal pretzel logic at it’s worst.

    Comment by Baxter Greene (8035ae) — 4/27/2009 @ 12:26 am

  40. When the Cheneys watch ‘Magnum Force,’ they root for the traffic cops over Clint Eastwood.

    Publish the book, Scooter.

    Comment by DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/27/2009 @ 12:46 am

  41. Engaging in any ‘debate’ attempting to rationalize waterboarding is in itself a validation that there’s an argument to be made for it.

    It’s incidiously clever tactic. And pure Cheney.

    Comment by DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/27/2009 @ 1:11 am

  42. DCSCA — Dick Cheney is a great American who has done more in service of his country over the past 37 years than Obama will ever do in the remainder of his lifetime.

    Comment by WLS Shipwrecked (53653f) — 4/27/2009 @ 2:43 am

  43. WLS Shipwrecked: Cheney worked to keep the country safe, and he has a 88 month track record. Obama has endangered the country in just 100 days. Countdown to next terrorist attack, Summer of 2010?

    Comment by liontooth (c6d5a7) — 4/27/2009 @ 3:14 am

  44. “I wouldn’t put it past the guy now in the White House to treat such a scenario as a problem mainly because it would have occurred on his watch, and therefore impinged on his ego, and not anything beyond that.”

    And he’s a muslin.

    “WLS Shipwrecked: Cheney worked to keep the country safe, and he has a 88 month track record.”

    He’s got a lot of dead Americans on his watch. Obama will too.

    Comment by imdw (490521) — 4/27/2009 @ 5:12 am

  45. The Moral Equivalency Brigade is once again heard from – everyone is somehow guilty of everything, so why affix blame?

    Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/27/2009 @ 6:22 am

  46. DiCkSuCkA doesn’t have much of a bag of tricks, does he?

    Comment by Jim Treacher (796deb) — 4/27/2009 @ 6:29 am

  47. You mean besides making up stuff out of whole cloth, Jim?

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 4/27/2009 @ 7:45 am

  48. Treacher is my hero.

    Comment by JD (e66bfa) — 4/27/2009 @ 7:51 am

  49. [...] Patterico, who notes in this post how the Washington Post gets the facts of the Library Tower terror plot story wrong, and in this [...]

    Pingback by More on the disrupted LA Library Tower terror plot « Sister Toldjah (52e518) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:10 am

  50. You mean besides making up stuff out of whole cloth, Jim?

    Well, he has also mastered the whole name-calling thing.

    But spelling and grammar don’t seem to be among his accomplishments. I’ve long since given up on the hope that he’ll employ logic and truthfulness.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:14 am

  51. Rest assured they will try again, if they tried twice against the Library Tower, just like they tried twice against the London Subway before they got through, and they will likely succeed now that all our defense are now out in the open. And those officials not already in the dock, will be watching their steps very carefully.

    Comment by narciso (4e0dda) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:31 am

  52. To be sure, those who dispute that the public record is conclusive are primarily liberals, who have axes of their own to grind with the Bush Administration, but no evidence of their own to dispute that public record.

    Except that pesky “IG Report” reference from Bradbury’s oft-cited memo:

    “As the IG Report notes, it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks.”

    Bradbury essentially argues against the IG Report.

    Inspector General John Helgerson’s examination of counter-terrorism techniques rankled enough people that CIA Director General Hayden ordered “a small team of top agency officials to examine the performance of the inspector general.”

    Hayden is gone. Bradbury is gone. Helgerson remains.

    Don’t hang the ref.

    One week before packing up, Steven Bradbury wrote an apologia, advising that prominent OLC opinions written before 2004 “should not be treated as authoritative for any purposes.” Poof! The opinion that “Congress has no role to play concerning the prosecution of enemy combatants” is disavowed on the way out the door. “Caution should be exercised,” he ended, “before relying in other respects on the remaining opinions.”

    Comment by steve (ff1c52) — 4/27/2009 @ 3:41 pm

  53. If Obama had his way, we would have learned about the Library Tower plot, not through waterboarding, but when it happened.

    It seems like this has been the beginnings of a useful exercise. But since this ridiculous a*spull is still the foundation of your point, it’s not clear yet if you can learn to build your case a little more carefully, or frame it a little more conservatively, or tell the difference between speculation and speculation stated as if it was fact.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_nightclub_bombing

    You’ve heard of this 2002 event? Yes? JI wasn’t exactly keeping a low profile. We had, to understate heavily, some other leads.

    Oh, but you’ve got a memo! A memo, from the people repeatedly confronted with evidence that they were probably breaking the law from Republicans inside their own executive branch, prior to the time of writing! And it says that it this was really, really important!

    Tom Macguire is a little more honest:

    Well. Official reassurance plus common sense does not sum to proof (Even when it’s Patterico’s common sense, not to mention my own). But the absence of common sense and a healthy skepticism for official pronouncements does not sum to proof either. If a Truth Commission could sort this sort of thing out without tipping our hand to the enemy I would be all for it.

    Indeed. We should thank Dick Cheney for helping spark the heated disagreement between the Bush Admin and the Bush Admin about what actually happened. It clears the way for some real investigation into the matter. Let’s shine some sunlight.

    By the way, a good time to drop Abu Zubadiyah, since the FBI has shredded that case. And why hasn’t anyone trumpeted how much great info we got out of waterboarding Al-Nashiri yet?

    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/24/why-dont-they-claim-al-nashiris-waterboarding-worked/

    Your best case is – what now? 1 out of 3, times, useful info? Maybe? With no attempt at all to seriously evaluate what the odds were of getting that info through other sources? And two near-complete washouts, not even accurately designated HTV.

    Of course, they were trying to use this stuff to find AQ-Iraq ties, so it’s not like we don’t have clues as to the level of ignorance in which this stuff went on.

    Comment by glasnost (af3e29) — 4/27/2009 @ 4:19 pm

  54. Except that one time proved to be pretty damn successful. LA says thanks that you were not in charge.

    so it’s not like we don’t have clues as to the level of ignorance in which this stuff went on.

    If there was ever an expert of levels of ignorance …

    Comment by JD (6ef9a2) — 4/27/2009 @ 4:43 pm

  55. Comment by glasnost — 4/27/2009 @ 4:19 pm

    What a perfectly useless comment.

    Comment by Jim Treacher (796deb) — 4/27/2009 @ 4:44 pm

  56. Treach – I think the moral preening and pompous pedantry is instructive. YMMV

    Comment by JD (6ef9a2) — 4/27/2009 @ 4:46 pm

  57. “What a perfectly useless comment.”

    Not so. It let me catch up on my sleep.

    Comment by Dave Surls (dd61e6) — 4/27/2009 @ 4:48 pm

  58. [...] mentioned, anywhere in the article, is the fact that recently declassified memos confirm that waterboarding KSM was key to disrupting a plot to fly airplanes into the tallest skyscraper in [...]

    Pingback by LA Times Leaves Out That Waterboarding Helped Thwart Terror Attack… on Los Angeles (14de75) — 4/27/2009 @ 5:00 pm

  59. Glasnost, you ignorant slut – only a true nutbag would source Man/Bear/Pig as proof of anything, other than there sure are plenty of unhinged libs out there spewing all sorts of noxious screeds. Try again (or better yet, don’t).

    Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/27/2009 @ 6:49 pm

  60. glasnost – Why did emptywheel believe what Nashiri was saying at his tribunal? Since she admits she did not know whether the 9/11 Commission citations came before or after waterboarding and may be the reasons Cheney omitted referring to them, her entire post essentially is complete speculation. Funny you take it as fact. Also, Soufan’s N.Y. Times account did not say waterboarding was not effective. Try actually reading it instead of relying on someone else’s interpretation. Your supposed refutation here has been worthless as usual.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/28/2009 @ 10:04 pm

  61. Why can’t interrogations be left to our allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 4/29/2009 @ 12:56 pm

  62. They will from now on, Michael, that’s why much of this controversy is ridiculous because of the unintended consequences of attacking the Bush admin on this will be more suffering and death among potential prisoners.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 4/29/2009 @ 2:06 pm

  63. They will from now on, Michael, that’s why much of this controversy is ridiculous because of the unintended consequences of attacking the Bush admin on this will be more suffering and death among potential prisoners.

    Works for me.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 4/29/2009 @ 2:13 pm

  64. I’m not that broken hearted either, Michael. But the stupidity gets annoying after awhile …

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 4/29/2009 @ 2:37 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3514 secs.