• Facebook
  • Twitter
KQµårk 死神 On May - 4 - 2011

The media is failing Americans again by buying into the narrative that there is a real debate if using torture actually helped or did not help track down Osama Bin Laden.  It is simply logically invalid to let the debate continue that Osama Bin Laden was anyway discovered through the use of torture because that belief has a fatal logical flaw.  Instead using premise whether or not torture worked they should be asking questions to why we should be having this debate at all.

Why is the media not asking the first obvious question?

Since we know torture ended late in Bush’s term or early in his second term at worst why did Bush’s intelligence apparatus not find the name of the real courier?  The answer should be obvious if the media was competent and or not bias.  Because knowing Osama Bin Laden had a courier with a code name was of no real intelligence value.

Based on media reports the absolute most we got from torturing detainees was that Osama Bin Laden had a courier with a code name that could not even be corroborated because some detainees understandably lied and some just denied he had a trusted courier at all.

So we start out with the facts that at most they found out through torture that they found out Osama Bin Laden had a courier with some sort of code name.

There are two reasons the information gathered through torture was absolutely useless or at least obvious.

First since anchient times any military organization with competent military commanders have used couriers to transfer messages and orders.  It goes back that far because it’s obviously necessary for military leaders to use couriers.  So there is no way that piece of information was useful in any way because it was easily deduced unless you had the absurd belief that Osama Bin Laden used no couriers to carry out complex operations like 911.

Second since at least during Roman times (probably much earlier and I bet Khirad would probably have more insight) couriers had code names.  They used code names so they would not be caught and most importantly not be tracked back to the source in this case Osama Bin Laden.  So the couriers nickname could have been Donald Duck and it would still have not gotten us any closer to Osama Bin Laden.

Therefor the obvious logical conclusion is the “best” intelligence that could have been uncovered with torture was meaningless.  Ergo we should not even be debating whether torture helped catch Osama Bin Laden at all.  It really is logically speaking like debating if the world is flat or a spheroid.

Again based on the information we have most importantly the key crack in the case happened when we discovered Osama Bin Laden’s courier’s real name to a high degree of certainty.  Because that courier led us to the compound where Osama Bin Laden resided.  That key information was unequivocally gathered without the use of torture under the Obama administration using good old fashioned detective work including legal interrogations, survailance and FISA law.  Based on this excellent detective work the administration still only knew there was a 60-80% chance that Osama Bin Laden resided there.   Quite frankly I’m surprised no one is bringing up how the Patriot Act or newest FISA laws where most likely used to find the possible whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden.  But then again that would require a competent and unbiased media.


Written by KQµårk 死神

My PlanetPOV contact is [email protected] Proud Dem whose favorite hobby is cat herding. The GOP is not a political party, it's a personality disorder. Cancer, Heart Failure and Bush Survivor.

52 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. funksands says:

    Ah so here is how things are going to be spun:

    “… Interrogators would never have asked about the names of couriers during waterboarding. As I explain in my book, “Courting Disaster,” enhanced techniques were not used to gain intelligence; they were used to elicit cooperation. According to former CIA director Mike Hayden, as enhanced techniques were applied, CIA interrogators would ask detainees questions to which the interrogators already know the answers — allowing them to judge whether the detainees had reached a level of compliance. “They are designed to create a state of cooperation, not to get specific truthful answers to a specific question,” Hayden said.”

    Marc Thiessen -- Opinion piece Washington Post


  2. ADONAI says:

    Torture has proved ineffective historically. A long list of false information given to stop whatever pain is being inflicted.

    Napoleon didn’t care for it though he still used it on occasion cause he’s a dick.

    During the Hundred Years War, the French and English tortured each other endlessly and never got anything of value from it. it only ended after they had burned a young woman at the stake for talking to GOD(Joan of Arc).

    A lot of torture during the Civil war. No good intelligence. Any intelligence Sherman gained on his march to the sea was gained through interrogation. Not torture. Apparently, if you treat people like human beings, they’ll talk to you.

    Germans and Japanese tortured hundreds, maybe thousands, of U.S. and Russian soldiers. Never got anything of value. Obviously. Same in Korea and Vietnam. It just doesn’t work. Especially on soldiers and people fighting for a cause they truly believe in. Many just will not betray that cause under torture. And when they do, they’re usually just telling you what you want to hear.

  3. Sabreen60 says:

    See the shiny thingy -- look over here. That’s all this is -- a distraction. Something for the mouth breathers. Torture is ILLEGAL. The Geneva Conventions says so (which the US signed on to) and people have been prosecuted and jailed for using torture. All high level military and civilian investigators have said that information garnered from torture victims is suspect at best. To me, this is common sense. If someone is pouring water down your nose and throat chances are you will tell them what they want to hear. One of the major problems of prosecuting prisoners at Gitmo is determining whether they told the truth while being tortured. The MSM should go the way of the dinosaurs. The MSM is useless and in fact dangerous, IMO. The Fourth Estate my ass!

    • choicelady says:

      Generally the information “gained” is useless because tortured people will give up ANYTHING to end the torture. It is NOT open to debate!

      It is crucial that we reply to every MSM declaration that this worked, that it broke the case, so to speak. That’s a LIE and needs to be called out, each time, every time.

    • KQuark says:

      Absolutely the ethical debate is also a farce. I didn’t being it up in this argument but that’s a truism as well. Debating torture is as morally bankrupt as debate slavery which we don’t do anymore.

      • invient says:

        You can not use the end to justify the means… I’ll just compromise my morals now, and justify it on the outcome…

        The argument “hey, look it worked therefore it is justified” is a non sequitur.

  4. Chernynkaya says:

    KQ yes, and thanks for pointing out the obviously illogical fact in such a plain way. But I’d bet that you know that certain segments of the American public--in fact, of the whole world--has abandoned logic for pure id. As in Idiocy. As we know--and to me this is the most frustrating thing--people who believe in nonsense actually become MORE convinced of their crap the more they are confronted with facts. There have been numerous studies proving this phenomenon, so I just don’t know how to combat idiocy. I can only take solace in thinking that these morons comprise a small segment of the population, but who knows. At this point, it has become common knowledge that some people will never be convinced that we killed OBL. It’s part of the public debate: if the government releases photos, will that convince anyone who doubts it anyway? This is how low we have sunk-- that everyone has acknowledged that a significant potion of the American public is irrational. Let me amend that: there is such a thing as healthy skepticism regarding our government and the press. But what gets me is that the skeptics never question the Rights’ lies--only those of a Dem administration.

    Anyway, I wanted to bring up something else that has gone under the radar: Wikileaks. This operation was successful because of the amazing secrecy that was maintained. At any moment, the whole thing could have been ruined if OBL had even a whiff of suspicion he was being watched. And so, the oh-so-patriotic Pvt Manning or whomever at Wikileaks dumped a bunch of correspondence from Gitmo. Including this:

    They released the intel about the courier. What patriots. It is only by chance this little item didn’t blow the entire operation.

    • ADONAI says:

      I gotta tell you, if the plan to kill Bin Laden fell apart, Bradley Manning would have been the last person I blamed.

      They may have gotten Bin Laden but this doesn’t change my feelings about the military one bit. You’re a good man Bradley Manning. You may have went a little overboard, but I get ya.

    • choicelady says:

      I’m not being funny -- I bet the government used couriers with briefcases chained to wrists just to avoid the leaks.

      I have no problem with secrecy in defense of needed actions with revelations give afterwards. I agree with KQ -- the leaks that cost lives were disgusting and indefensible.

    • KQuark says:

      I brought up the Manning thing snarkily in the OBL dead thread but it is so true that some things must be kept secret for national security reasons. That’s why I don’t give Manning a pass for giving the names of Afghan civilians that are informants in many cases. That fact should have been kept secret for their safety and the safety of their families.

      As far as being skeptical about government we should be. But in this case common sense should prevail and you should be able to deduce that this lie would hurt the administration so much that it’s simply not worth taking a chance that it was not true. It’s not the big lie that we think of like the fact that Ryan’s budget does not dismantle Medicare because it would be easy to prove OBL was alive.

    • Abbyrose86 says:

      I have a new tactic for combating the lunacy, I ask seemingly unrelated questions (of similar activities, in a nice way) AND than I start connecting the dots with questions about the subject at hand.

      I have had a wee bit of success with those that aren’t TOO far gone with this tactic.

      NOTHING works with the utterly hate filled and delusional. Sad to say.

      • KQuark says:

        Excellent technique Abby. It’s similar to the way they do lie detector tests I believe.

        • Abbyrose86 says:

          I learned the technique from a professor of mine, back when I was in school the first time and studying journalism…I didn’t know that was how they do the lie detectors….thanks for the info!

      • choicelady says:

        Abby -- I think I understand and try to do it, but could you provide examples? I like this as a process, just want to understand it!

        • Abbyrose86 says:

          Hi Choice lady, well for example…take the issue of taxes (this works best for town property taxes and school taxes, but I’ve used it for with those who JUST hate taxes, period,)

          I start by asking where they shop…and if they ever buy in bulk. I might ask why they like a certain store or don’t like another store.

          Depending on how they answer, will determine which direction I take and what questions I ask next…(I usually try to make it very conversational and friendly…and not necessary directed simply to the idea of taxes)

          Then I might ask how much money do they save buying in bulk (on the unit price) or going to a particular store…than I may ask why they think it is CHEAPER at that store. (Most people do realize that buying in bulk is cheaper and that big stores such as Walmart buy in large quantities and thus benefit from economies of scale…they might not know the term for it, but they realize it).

          And then I start asking questions about how much do they think they would be pay in tuition for a private school or to have their garbage picked up. I might even (depending on who I am speaking to ask them to calculate the daily/monthly amount of that expenditure and then calculate what their daily/monthly tax liability actually is) SOME have been quite surprised that they actually pay less in property taxes per day, than they spend on coffee!

          • choicelady says:

            Ok -- I do understand and have done similar things, though not that which I love! Just wanted to be sure I did get it right. It’s bloody brilliant! I really like that and totally agree with you about how well that can work!

            Asking questions really does work better than lecturing unless you’ve been invited to do the latter (I am often). Helping people find their core values and linking those values to other issues such as saving money in “bulk purchases” of governmental services is just GREAT. Nice job! Thank you for such a brilliant example!

            You’re right also about not wasting your breath on the deeply furious haters of everything. Smile and walk away.

      • Chernynkaya says:

        That’s a good strategy, Abby. But as you say, it only works with those who are merely not thinking things through, and not with the delusional.It really is upsetting to me how many seem to be too far gone. They want an need to believe the lies of the right because it justifies their hatred--I get that, but it really disturbs me how many of them there are!

        • Abbyrose86 says:

          I hear you Cher…I actually, personally know some people like that, and they are sadly, very miserable people…as such they take their misery out on everyone and blame everyone…it’s really sad.

          It disturbs me as well that so many are so angry and miserable with their lives, and they want to make everyone like them. I have my suspicions as to how this happens.

          The people, I personally know who are like this, all have certain things in common…bad childhoods with uninvolved or somewhat abusive, and miserable parents.

          It does seem that children do learn what they live and than continue that same behavior as adults.

          So sad.

  5. foxisms says:

    Perhaps the use of torture remains an issue because after years of the American people telling themselves that our country was above that sort of treatment for people in our custody and that ‘only the bad guys would do such a thing to people in their custody’ — we were hit with scenes from Gitmo, followed by the family photo albums from Abu Ghraib and most recently, the use and official justification of wide spread “water boarding” as a means to extract information. Underlying this was the knowledge that there was no “logical”, compelling reason to be engaged in certain theaters of combat to begin with, at which point the whole American self image thing kind of took a massive beating for a good while there. And still has the bruises to show it.
    We have no reason to be confident that torture is no longer in use now, anymore than we did then. It’s not the kind of thing political officials or military personnel like to own up to in a free society that likes to see itself above all that.
    The fact is, the American people have no real way of knowing or verifying if torture is or isn’t in any fashion, still in practice as an informational tool in any one of perhaps dozens of secreted, off shore, international gulags run for the convenience (or security) of American and NATO secret (and not so secret) forces. Knowing this, knowing human nature, knowing our history and the history and practices of war in general… I think it’s perfectly logical to at least assume the possibility of torture remaining an implement and practice of advantage to no less degree than ever.
    “Logic” and “logical fallacies” began to lose their meanings when people began using them as arguments to support their own “logical” conclusions while bypassing the equations necessary to support, qualify and trace any and all “logic” involved or being declared.
    Of course everyone with an opinion believes it to be, if not correct entirely, then certainly derived at “logically” and thus it must be “logical”. Everyone I know believes their arguments and opinions are founded on sound logic. I’m sure everyone you know does too.
    But more often than not, it isn’t. Not really. It’s just an opinion added to those expressed by everyone else. It can be well thought out, and to some or many (and especially the originator)it genuinely feels logical. But calling it such makes it no more right or wrong or no more a logical construction or a logical fallacy than any other…no matter how well written or expressed as this one and many here and elsewhere are.
    The use of the word “logical” has become simultaneously a qualifier and a disclaimer as an entrance fee for modern conversation and credibility. As such, it has moved from simply representing the science of logic, to something all together different.
    Not necessarily a bad thing or something used by bad intended people, by any means. But still, something entirely different than what it once was.

    • choicelady says:

      Yes -- we CAN be sure torture is no longer being used by our government because this administration’s process has been vetted by outside human rights groups. It also can be verified by results. Torture? No usable information for 8 years. NO torture -- excellent information in 8 months. Both the US and NATO have pacts against the use of torture, and we know historically NATO never has used it.

      There is no way we can entirely rule out the use of torture by some of our dubious allies, but renditions to those countries are being seriously curtailed so that the risk is greatly lessened.

      Study this -- Phillipe Sands, Jane Mayer etc. The use of torture by the government of our nation has been comparatively rare. The LEGAL justification of torture came entirely with Bush. On Jan. 22, 2009 President Obama outlawed the use of torture as his very first act as president. I believe from human rights investigations that we do NOT use torture at all anymore. That IS how we verify. In two years plus, the only people absolutely “certain” that we still torture prisoners of war and conflict are progressives who have yet to yield up a scrap of evidence. Not one.

      So yeah -- I think, as the former board member of a national anti-torture organization, I can pretty securely say -- the US no longer uses torture. And the pressure to end it came almost entirely from faith and human rights groups. We DID prevail on this issue.

      Now -- to stop the Religious Right from covertly and illegally funding nations overseas that DO use torture? That’s our next step. They work entirely outside government, under the table, to give support to brutal dictators who will make alliances with these Christian supremacists for mutual support. Read “The Family” by Jeff Sharlett on this alliance. It’s mind boggling. We need to challenge our own RW Christians from perpetuating foreign policy in extra-legal ways, especially those acts that engage dictators who torture their own people. This HAS to stop.

      • foxisms says:

        choice, I see why you choose to hang your hope on these particular coat hooks, and many people hang theirs on others with far less confidence, so I can hardly fault yours.
        Me? I’m looking forward to something a little more solid, I suppose. I need that.
        Going on faith alone for policy of this or any administration is why so many are surprised when they learn of there being a gap between the message and the means as we have done from the Bay of Tonkin to the Iraq invasion to what we ultimately learned about Abu Ghraib.
        My skittishness is no reflection on President Obama, his administration or the possibility of any hopes he may promise and make good on. I wish him well with his agenda but I don’t pretend to know it. He remains my president too.
        You and I are just two different people going about what we do and yet (I think) hoping for the same outcomes.

        • choicelady says:

          I just saw this, so I will answer now. I am not basing this on faith, secular or religious, but on VERIFICATION by human rights groups. Since the Jan. 22 Executive Order, we have not had one single case of torture admitted into evidence.

          As noted, rendition is HIGHLY problematic since we cannot control other nations, but we have largely stopped that practice thus reducing -- not necessarily eliminating -- the use of torture.

          It’s the verification that lets me know, foxisms.

          We do need to go backwards in time as well. It is all too clear that the US used torture and threat of same in Vietnam. Too many of our “walking wounded” from that war are mentally disturbed thanks to what they saw, what they did. It is clear that prisoners were in fact thrown out of helicopters over the ocean to make another prisoner talk. It is clear that we shot people to make other people talk. That has been confirmed BY too many of our soldiers.

          So the formal and de facto uses of torture after WW II -- things “borrowed” from the Nazis the religious right brought over to the US after the end of the war -- became a Cold War certainty.

          However, that ended with the Executive Order. Unless or until we have some kind of confirmation from those empowered to visit prisoners that torture is still being used, I think we can safely say it is not. The Red Cross, Red Crescent, and other human rights groups would be hollering loudly and clearly if they had wind of ANYTHING that even hinted that the US was still employing those methods.

          Remember, too, that virtually ALL of the torture was propagated by contract people, not by the military. We no longer use them at Gitmo or anywhere else. They still have presence, but they no longer do that job. They are out in the open. I think they should be denies contracts for ANY job, but they are no longer doing intelligence work at all. The Army Field Manual which is now the Gold Standard for interrogations specifically forbids the use of torture, and any military interrogator will tell you how utterly USELESS torture is as a means of extracting information. It is about conveying fear to populations and to show the power of the sovereign. This president has no such delusions.

          • KillgoreTrout says:

            Choice, if you have netflix, there is a great documentary concerning the atrocities committed in Vietnam. It’s entitled “Winter Soldier.” The things done by our own troops over there were as bad as it gets. My Lei was only one instance that got reported. There were several, just like it, that were not reported, or worse, ignored completely.

    • KQuark says:

      Debates that define what torture is a proper debate.

      I myself think of torture as anything that occurs outside of regular incarceration and interrogation in our normal prison system.

      That’s one reason why it’s ridiculous to say keeping prisoners naked and/or in solitary because they are a suicide risk is torture because that even occurs in psych wards.

      I disagree that if you just express your argument well enough you can somehow get around a logical fallacy because it takes making up or distorting the facts to get around a logical fallacy. A truly logical debate only uses verified facts and there are logic rules like you can’t expect your opposition to prove a negative.

      As far as verifying if torture never happens again logic says a negative can never be totally verified (as a scientist I know this limit very well) so to try to set that as criteria that the US does not torture is simply beyond a logical argument.

      Nothing that you said proves in any way that the US uses techniques like waterboarding now. Face it if you don’t trust government in anyway you can claim it does anything you don’t like but the real burden of proof is on you that the government tortures as part of any policy. I always found it ironic that progressives in most cases want more government regulations but never trusts government unless everything is transparent which is a ridiculous standard in the real world.

      • foxisms says:

        KQ, we’re splitting hairs here.
        While it is true that nothing I’ve said proves that the US uses techniques like water boarding…nothing in what your article said proves that the US doesn’t use techniques like water boarding.
        I wasn’t attempting to prove the use or non use of techniques like water boarding.
        With all applicable respect, I was pointing out (in perhaps too many words) that to draw a ‘truth’ based upon information that we are not necessarily made honest privy to in the first place (as we have found to be so in the recent past) is in itself, highly unreliable and as such, illogical in application.
        And that premise then becomes a logical fallacy in equal merit to the one which is being addressed as same.
        KQ…we have no idea what’s actually going on in these facilities. None what so ever. How do we draw any sort of ‘educated’ conclusion on this basis, let alone use that conclusion to refute “logic” from a source that contains no more fact on the matter than we may?
        Is there? Is there not(?) is not the question.
        What are the facts?
        All we have is what we are told. And we have seen the integrity of what we are told to often contain little to no factual basis.
        Using said information then to form a concrete argument against another that knows as little as we do, becomes, well, illogical.
        Instead it becomes simply an article of faith.

        • choicelady says:

          It is verifiable and has been verified by human rights groups. It has also once again been declared ILLEGAL and the phony justifications eliminated from our public policy.

          You are incorrect that “no one knows” because yes EVERYONE knows who takes the time to do the background checks. Human rights groups, the Red Cross, and others are paying very close attention. They know.

          • foxisms says:

            If you say so choice, I have every reason to believe that you are satisfied with your sources. And that’s a good and comfortable place to be for anyone.
            And I say, “good for you!”
            I need more. That’s all.
            I really don’t care to argue or war over it. OK?
            We all come to our own truths in our own time.

        • KQuark says:

          I will use and outlandish analogy just as an example but only take the final statement in the paragraph personally please. I have no facts that you are torturing puppies in your home so you could be doing that. I admit that is way over the top but I trust knowing the little that I do know about you that you are not torturing puppies on faith.

          So yes I trust the administration to the extent that it’s not our policy to torture. But again the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove there is waterboarding going on for me to believe it.

          I mean we faced another key moment today about how different Obama’s character is from Bush’s. No doubt Bush would be gloating and using OBL’s picture as a trophy. Hell the Bush website would be selling campaign t-shirts with OBL’s death mask. Obama is just a more civil man that way.

          • foxisms says:

            I at no point questioned your faith in the current admin nor do I feel I would deliberately do so.

            I contend that making an argument for or against something in which I question the logic of the opposition requires that I have a marriage of facts supporting the concluding logic.
            If I understand you correctly, you have a broader sense of the process and are willing to accept a marriage between faith and belief to support logic.
            I think there’s room for all that on this world.
            (And who told you about the puppies?) 😀

            • KQuark says:

              I don’t agree with or condone everything this administration does but I have also rarely see this administration hide things I even don’t like policy wise from the public.

            • Kalima says:

              You know bito it’s just been a few days and for me the speculation and skepticism is as annoying as it is becoming a big yawn.

              I question, especially after the wikileaks, the line between the public’s right to know and not to know. The fuss and support by some some on the Left about the information released was quite amazing to me. Now months later, I would like to ask these people what changed in their lives because of it. I for one see no reason for the public to have information about diplomatic affairs, if people believe otherwise, maybe they should take a stab at running the country instead. Knowing that the Foreign Minister of X country, can’t stand to be in the same room as the Foreign Minister of Y country does nothing to improve my daily situation. In the same way, having mistrust of any new government because the last one, or going back even decades into the past, was criminal in their policies on torture, makes no sense to me. As I said here many times before, living in the past, basing opinions on the past wrong doings of a government, only ensures that there will be no progress for the future. To me it’s like someone who has just finalized a divorce saying, “That’s it, I will never trust another man or woman again for as long as I live.”

              I don’t believe that the public has the right to know about a secret operation that must have been in the planning stage for a very long time, it could complicate any future and similar operations concerning terrorist that might arise. I think for some, even sitting on your President’s knee in the Oval Office, listening to his many private conversations wouldn’t be enough.

              Again, where does the public’s right to know end, and the national security of your country begin?

            • bito says:

              foxisms, yes, how did KQ know about the puppies? That is why I bring up the “real-world” aspect. Did you hire people to help you, did you tell anyone, did you take photos/vids, did you send an email, security checks on all the help…? Much of the abuse and “enhanced techniques” was revealed-leaked. No we can’t be 100% sure that they are not occurring, war crimes happen, but with the services now ordered to not do them by Executive Order, why would the Obama administration even go near it?

  6. choicelady says:

    KQ -- thank you for emphasizing this. I will say that yesterday the AP had a story affirming that NO information came out under torture, waterboarding or any other type, but under conventional interrogation. The Washington Post asserted that it had, and I wrote the reporter sending the AP story. I told him that I’d talked with high level interrogators who repudiate the use of torture as utterly useless, and that the fact (not clear it IS a fact) that two people who HAD been waterboarded later gave some useful help (how could they when they were out of circulation) proved only coincidence not causality. Later yesterday, the NY Times did a careful story about the chronology of evidence -- as you note there are always couriers -- and that the identity came very much after we’d ended torture.

    The evidence -- the identity of the courier -- could NOT be old or it would have been useless. What intelligence was gleaned was done so through non-torture methods, was RECENT -- and the media reluctantly are having to affirm that torture was DYSFUNCTIONAL in holding up information for several years.

    So the Right will always give Georgie “credit” for things done and exonerate him from things undone -- but this time they may have given us leverage for pursuing international human rights abuses with the US intelligence community shoving Bush out the door. They HATE what he did with contractors, and they won’t be falling on their swords to protect him.

    • KQuark says:

      It is good to hear much of the intelligence community coming correct on this one and your great point that CIA contractors were used to torture was spot on because actual CIA personal intensely resent contractors. Face it contractors were used for plausible deniability which Cheney almost invented after learning the lessons he did from the Nixon years.

  7. kesmarn says:

    Well said, KQ.

    The other logical fallacy that was pointed out by the mathematician around here is that when the economy was really struggling after Obama took office a common line from the right was: “Stop claiming that the economy’s problems are due to Bush. It’s been x number of months since Obama took office and he now owns the economy. Get over it.”

    Well if Obama has to own the economy, then he gets to own this accomplishment. Free and clear. If all things Bush ended the day Obama took office, then so be it.

    If there’s no blame allowed for Bush, there’s no credit allowed either.

    • KQuark says:

      Of course that belief is another logical fallacy for any part of the nation where things happen in long cycles and are predicated in years time. I for one would give Bush some credit based on this scenario. If the Bush administration did find the courier’s real name around August in 2008 and started developing that lead I would have given him some credit for getting OBL on May 1st 2009 with Obama in office. But we all know that’s not how it happened.

      For the sake of argument I would not have blamed Bush as much for 911 if he had kept the emphasis that President Clinton had on fighting terrorism. But Bush didn’t because he was an ideologue he dismantled all Clinton did even the good things. This is the same reason Bush should be blamed for North Korea developing nukes faster as well.

      • choicelady says:

        As a sidelight on changes in the Bush White House, I’d like to note that I was involved in a federal investigation (deep background NOT charges!) in which for three years there was a massive, multi-jurisdictional effort involving local, state, and federal people.

        A panel about that superiority of that kind of cooperation was presented in February 2001, just as John Ashcroft was entering as AG. Within TWO MONTHS the FBI representative was no longer allowed to speak to the other two people in the other two levels with whom he’d worked for almost three years. That was by the end of April 2001.

        If you are wondering why 9/11 occurred with so little inter-agency cooperation around the intelligence leading up to the horror -- I saw the decimation of good police work first hand. You can lay a lot of this at the feet of Ashcroft, Cheney, and the general paranoid style of governmental operation they learned in Nixon’s administration. It was a throwback to some of our nation’s worst moments, and it cost this nation thousands of lives on 9/11 and in the aftermath.

  8. Mightywoof says:

    Absolutely agree KQ -- unfortunately, the media nowadays (in this 24-7 news cycle) has to talk, transmit and print non-stop -- so they gossip. That is all it is -- pure gossip and speculation and of the worst kind. Nobody listens to `nice` but they`ll listen open-mouthed if a good conspiracy theory seems to be forming. I`d roll my eyes again but I`m trying to break the habit.

  9. SallyT says:

    The main reason torture has been in the media is because the right (FOX) has jumped on the information about the courier came out of Guantanamo. Obama stopped waterboarding in 2009. The left has had to address it. Many of the detainees had been waterboarded before but the information came later. The main issue, I feel, is: Why didn’t Bush use the information if he got it when they were using torture? Because they didn’t have it. Torture is illegal and should remain as such. That is the Lefts argument before and still.

    • KQuark says:

      Bush actually stopped waterboarding before that. Bush’s first term was really Cheney’s term but Bush did change many things in his second term like ending torture and even negotiating the draw down in Iraq. I mean I even give Bush credit for starting to create a pretty sensible immigration policy but his own party scuttled that idea.

    • bito says:

      Good point Sally, where is all the cable speculation on the “if the Bush admin. had the information, why didn’t they use it, were they saving it for President Obama? That topic could at least fill a few hours of the jabbers.

    • foxisms says:

      ST. I don’t think we have any way to confirm that water boarding or any other harsh treatment has been eliminated from the menu provided to extract information from someone that would lead to the sense of security (real or imagined) that might be being sought by agents CIA or military…regardless of the public signing of documents to that effect.
      It may be carried out by an allied companion in our behalf and at our behest in a mutually shared and hidden holding facility, thus removing the implicit involvement of US personnel or it may be going on otherwise as a matter of course. It may be happening less than previously or more than previously. Who’s to say?
      But we have no way of knowing what practices are being implemented or not, now, any more than we have known prior to the occurances of those instances that we “accidentally” became aware of in the first place. Perhaps it’s a matter of faith. Perhaps it’s a hope for the best. But it’s not a known variable now any more than it was in the past.

  10. Kalima says:

    Hi K, I agree completely. I just discovered that the British news sites also have this story in their headlines. It’s once again pure speculation before hardly any of the details have been released. If you remember here in Japan and the fear mongering and pure fallacy reported in the international press, you will know how annoying and tedious media speculation can be. Why can’t they just wait for the details, instead of charging off on stories that they might have to retract.

    I decided not to post any of their stories concerning the “torture” leaked information. Instant gratification is so crass and boring, but the lunatics who want to smear your President seem to forget that Bush was actually signing off on the torture during his time in office, and it was illegal, and now they want to give him credit for this crime or for something that was undeniably not obtained through torture?

    We didn’t hear any complaints from the RW then did we. These poor, dumb Bush apologists now find themselves without a “bad guy”, it won’t be long before their attention turns back to Iran or N. Korea, you know, Bush’s famous “axis of evil”. If they want him back so badly, someone could throw them some deep sea fishing tackle, and they could try to hook him. I hope that someone is taking notes about all this talk about torture being admitted so openly and freely right now, because I’m sure that there will be plenty of space when they arrive at Den Haag. If the Left is running with this they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

    • KQuark says:

      I decided not to post any of their stories concerning the “torture” leaked information. Instant gratification is so crass and boring, but the lunatics who want to smear your President seem to forget that Bush was actually signing off on the torture during his time in office, and it was illegal, and now they want to give him credit for this crime or for something that was undeniably not obtained through torture?

      Hi K I could have not said it better.

      I felt the same way about writing this article. It is so patently obvious that torture had nothing to do with solving this case with any person with common sense that I felt a bit silly for even posting it. But I just saw so many people in the media miss this obvious point that I had to write something.

      • Kalima says:

        “I felt a bit silly for even posting it. But I just saw so many people in the media miss this obvious point that I had to write something.”

        K, as my hubby always says, “Well someone had to say it, do it or eat it”. If the people pushing this time wasting nonsense spin any faster, they will be biting their own ankles soon before launching themselves into orbit. I’m glad you brought it up, it’s been annoying me for days, along with the proof of death pictures, why is this even necessary. I think of the poor families of the over 12,000 still missing Japanese, and have to wonder if by this crazy logic, these poor people won’t accept that their loved ones are dead because they have no body to bury or proof of death picture to confirm it?
        Thanks for bringing this up, I didn’t have much energy left after reading the worldwide circus barkers going through their usual motions.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories