Whatever Works, Dick

[vixengrl]

I swear I've seen more of Cheney in the past month than I think I did during Bush's last year in office. And if it were at all possible, I think I like him less.

My biggest problem with him right now is, in the midst of the torture debate going on in the news and in the blogosphere, that we know he's a lying sack of crap. He lied about WMD's in Iraq and the Iraq-al Qaeda thread long after it was fashionable or practical for anyone to do so. And so he pushed the "Liberty Tower lie" on a show like Sean Hannity's, where, because Hannity simply doesn't possess an inch of forehead, it went unquestioned.

It just doesn't seem to have happened ( http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bush-seizes-on-alqaeda-plot-to-hit-los-angeles/2006/02/10/1139542403036.html) the way it gets told by the Bushies. As far as the "well, it worked" line of crap goes, there's plenty of people who are ready to see it doesn't, so much.

The recent op-ed by Ali Soufan illustrates this:

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.

What I've been able to glean from reading page after page of commentary about this "enhanced interrogation" the Bush Administration had claimed was necessary, seems to indicate that it wasn't, particularly. There were other ways. Legal ways. And that the intelligence that the interrogators were supposed to extract in those early days--

The whereabouts of Bin Laden? The hypothetical "ticking time bomb?"

No. A connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, which never materialized because it didn't exist.

Understandably, the information they got was mostly of the historical variety. You know, like the 8/6/01 PDB was supposed to be historical. It seems like the lawful intelligence-gathering methods we already had in place got us good information. When the 9/11 hijackers struck, Bush could tell us two days later it was al-Qaeda. How did he do that, if our intelligence agencies didn't have people who were quite good at what they did, and also already had the capabilities they needed?

But let's leave aside the question of "Did it work?" and even allow that some intelligence was produced that way (but don't be like Bill O'Reilly--read through to this conclusion:

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

More here:

http://vixenstrangelymakesuncommonsense.blogspot.com/2009/04/whatever-works-dick.html