I'd say something about the veracity of that blog, but the commentators there basically said all there is to say- James Kirchick must have trouble sitting down after the ass-chewing he got.

Yes, insults from commenters are devastating. Truly. Too bad the New York Times had the facts 3 years ago (^) or they might've had something there.

Missing Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=Ibn%20Shei kh%20al-Libi&st=cse

Proofreading is good.

There are several problems with this assertion. First is that there is no evidence to substantiate Wilkerson's claim that, after Abu Ghraib, "No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator." How would Wilkerson even know this? He left the government with Powell four years ago. Oh yes, he has his "investigations." And while it's true that Obama issued an executive order banning waterboarding, he left open the option of continuing the renditioning of terrorists to foreign countries, where, presumably, they will undergo worse ordeals than simulated drowning and being put in a small space with a caterpillar.

This paragraph alone should win a pulitzer and this dude should be given the medal of honor for being brave enough to type it.

*click* Blog [X]

styckx: *click* Blog [X]

I'm sure that's what you do for every DailyKos and HuffPo link, too, right? Not just the ones that might expose you to facts you'd prefer not to believe?

MuadDib: styckx: *click* Blog [X]

I'm sure that's what you do for every DailyKos and HuffPo link, too, right? Not just the ones that might expose you to facts you'd prefer not to believe?

This one has cited sources like Kos does ? Cool, in that case I will take a good look at it and use it as an example of your credibility.

Mordant: MuadDib: styckx: *click* Blog [X]

I'm sure that's what you do for every DailyKos and HuffPo link, too, right? Not just the ones that might expose you to facts you'd prefer not to believe?

This one has cited sources like Kos does ? Cool, in that case I will take a good look at it and use it as an example of your credibility.

IWhat you think as to my 'credibility' is not my primary concern, but I did get the New York Times link above from it. Ther article does indeed seem to establish that "al Libi actually divulged information about Iraq-al Qaeda links two months before Wilkerson claims he had been waterboarded." Which is pretty much dispositive of the issue.

Good enough?

It's still a blog, it's about as credible as AboveTopSecret. And when you use the term "seems to establish" that means it actually hasn't established anything.

So this blog is arguing that torture harsh interrogation techniques continued to be employed by the Bush administration? Those interrogation techniques which, at best, are questionable activities and at worst war crimes against the Geneva conventions? Nice argument there, pal.

/I'd bet my life (and safety) that holding on to American values is much better than torturing anyone to keep me safe

Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned the whole matter is now closed. I apologize for ever suspecting foul play from the heroes of modern America.

Mordant: Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned the whole matter is now closed. I apologize for ever suspecting foul play from the heroes of modern America.

Well spoken, sir.

styckx: It's still a blog, it's about as credible as AboveTopSecret. And when you use the term "seems to establish" that means it actually hasn't established anything.

No, it means I'm being sardonic. The Times article is quite clear, as you'd have seen if you'd risked exposing yourself to it.

MuadDib: New York Times

Since when do people like you hold up the Times as a bastion of integrity and good reporting?

MuadDib: styckx: *click* Blog [X]

I'm sure that's what you do for every DailyKos and HuffPo link, too, right? Not just the ones that might expose you to facts you'd prefer not to believe?

Uh, what *facts* were espoused in this article? I saw a whole lot of opinion, attempts to denigrate the original author, and *seems like* used in place of sourced facts.

mediablitz: MuadDib: styckx: *click* Blog [X]

I'm sure that's what you do for every DailyKos and HuffPo link, too, right? Not just the ones that might expose you to facts you'd prefer not to believe?

Uh, what *facts* were espoused in this article? I saw a whole lot of opinion, attempts to denigrate the original author, and *seems like* used in place of sourced facts.


Wilkerson's claim: "Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.

So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney's office that their detainee 'was compliant' (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa'ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, 'revealed' such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop."


4 year old New York Times article: "The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, 'was intentionally misleading the debriefers' in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda's work with illicit weapons."

Ergo, Wilkerson cannot possibly be correct.

I'll do like I do with everything else and wait for an official report to come out. Never understood the clamoring around soapbox armchair politicians who gather a massive following only because they word their language, politics and opinion around that of a target demographic. Same goes for all the sites, and also shows that consist of 5 people at a table talking over each other for 30 minutes with a ring leader directing the topic of outrage for the day.

well of COURSE the story is completely false and totally bogus!!!!!!

What kind of idiot would actually think it was true?

Oh....wait.......

The Huffpo McKosmeisters

It's The New Republic.

The same geniuses who "knew" there were WMD's in Iraq.

But like Nancy Pelosi and waterboarding, he chose not to speak out until it became politically convenient.

I think this is why most people are pissed with Pelosi, and rightfully so. Speaking out when it is only politically convenient is very, very telling.

Bob16: It's The New Republic.

The same geniuses who "knew" there were WMD's in Iraq.

And they quote the New York Times. Read the article next time smart guy.

Fairly good recap of the situation:

helix400:

* There was a Iraqi guy, Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi, who was deeply involved in Iraqi's intelligence, who would have known about WMD or al-Qaeda if any existed.
* Several officials from Washington said the interrogation on him was too soft.
* Someone from the office of the Vice President, but it is unknown who, essentially said "Should we use waterboarding to try to extract more info?"
* The response was "No, we can't. It's not a terrorism case, therefore, waterboarding can't be used."
* So, he wasn't waterboarded. It seems the matter was dropped afterwards.

I share Wilkerson's view that much of America's foreign policy, including the bizarre, indefensible invasion of Iraq, reflects not America's interests, but Israel's. There needs to be a way to put this view forward in the broader public debate without being accused of being anti-Semitic.

carpbrain: I share Wilkerson's view that much of America's foreign policy, including the bizarre, indefensible invasion of Iraq, reflects not America's interests, but Israel's. There needs to be a way to put this view forward in the broader public debate without being accused of being anti-Semitic.

I agree, we should have that debate in the public and no one arguing for or against foreign policy that is either influenced by Israeli interests or happens to align with Israeli interests should be allowed to accuse someone of anti-Semitism solely due to their position on that.

But, if we do that, then we should be fair: we should also be able to have a legitimate, honest debate about immigration and its effects without having any accused of being racist for supporting tighter regulations/controls.

Just like there will be some who are anti-US foreign policy that aligns with or is influenced by Israel that are that way because of hate for Jews, there will be those who are anti-illegal immigration because they are racist and don't like Mexicans.

But, if you want to have an honest, open debate about either, you can't get throwing around those accusations when you have no way to really prove them.

Realpolitik420: But like Nancy Pelosi and waterboarding, he chose not to speak out until it became politically convenient.

I think this is why most people are pissed with Pelosi, and rightfully so. Speaking out when it is only politically convenient is very, very telling.

Is it possible that she wasn't legally allowed to say anything about her breifings? I'm really asking, I dont know.

Wilkerson needs to provide evidence of his claims as much as anyone else. I think a extra-congressional commision is the olny way to go.

Mordant: Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned the whole matter is now closed. I apologize for ever suspecting foul play from the heroes of modern America.

/your sarcasm is dripping.
//respectful smirk

bulldg4life: There are several problems with this assertion. First is that there is no evidence to substantiate Wilkerson's claim that, after Abu Ghraib, "No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator." How would Wilkerson even know this? He left the government with Powell four years ago. Oh yes, he has his "investigations." And while it's true that Obama issued an executive order banning waterboarding, he left open the option of continuing the renditioning of terrorists to foreign countries, where, presumably, they will undergo worse ordeals than simulated drowning and being put in a small space with a caterpillar.

This paragraph alone should win a pulitzer and this dude should be given the medal of honor for being brave enough to type it.

"Simulated drowning?" These people aren't being placed in a VR machine. It's drowning that's halted before a person is killed.

Realpolitik420: carpbrain: I share Wilkerson's view that much of America's foreign policy, including the bizarre, indefensible invasion of Iraq, reflects not America's interests, but Israel's. There needs to be a way to put this view forward in the broader public debate without being accused of being anti-Semitic.

I agree, we should have that debate in the public and no one arguing for or against foreign policy that is either influenced by Israeli interests or happens to align with Israeli interests should be allowed to accuse someone of anti-Semitism solely due to their position on that.

But, if we do that, then we should be fair: we should also be able to have a legitimate, honest debate about immigration and its effects without having any accused of being racist for supporting tighter regulations/controls.

Just like there will be some who are anti-US foreign policy that aligns with or is influenced by Israel that are that way because of hate for Jews, there will be those who are anti-illegal immigration because they are racist and don't like Mexicans.

But, if you want to have an honest, open debate about either, you can't get throwing around those accusations when you have no way to really prove them.

Hmmm. I agree with the sentiment of your post. I don't agree that illegal immigration poses a great threat to our nation, unlike our foreign policy in Asia, but I know that reasonable people disagree on this issue.

Regarding immigration, I think we need to either 1) make a legal guest worker program to take the place of our de facto policy or 2) change our mind, as a nation, about our labor force, with all of the resulting ramifications. I favor 1) but that's just my opinion.

libbynomore2: well of COURSE the story is completely false and totally bogus!!!!!!

What kind of idiot would actually think it was true?

Oh....wait.......

The Huffpo McKosmeisters

Bob16: It's The New Republic.

The same geniuses who "knew" there were WMD's in Iraq.

Only in America. I need to move.

SomebodyElsesShoes: Realpolitik420: But like Nancy Pelosi and waterboarding, he chose not to speak out until it became politically convenient.

I think this is why most people are pissed with Pelosi, and rightfully so. Speaking out when it is only politically convenient is very, very telling.

Is it possible that she wasn't legally allowed to say anything about her breifings? I'm really asking, I dont know.

The main point here -- many people have pointed this out, but it has not yet been recognized in the wider popular perception -- is that it's total bullshiat to "consult Congress" by "briefing" four members. If there is a matter of law at hand, e.g., legalizing torture, then the matter has to be put before the Congress as a whole, as Congress WRITES THE LAWS. There is no Constitutional meaning to "informing" a few select members of Congress about some bogus policy.

yes, this would be quite conclusive, if it weren't talking about the wrong detainee, the wrong person who made the claim, the wrong media outlet that has reported the claim, and if it weren't in the new republic.

the fact that neocons are crying that we won't get to torture anyone anymore is not proof of anything except their own cowardice. but it is nice to see that some Fark Independent out there thinks dick cheney is being vindicated because a right wing blog said so.

idiots.

GAT_00: MuadDib: New York Times

Since when do people like you hold up the Times as a bastion of integrity and good reporting?

The NY Times remains the best source of objective journalism in the nation. This is true despite fact of the Judith Miller Iraq War cheerleading.

carpbrain: The NY Times remains the best source of objective journalism in the nation

Agrees.

40below: carpbrain: The NY Times remains the best source of objective journalism in the nation

Agrees.

Heh. Point taken.

Of course the NY Times is not perfect. Everyone farks up. It's quite a bit more visible, though, when all eyes are on you.

I used to trust the Wall Street Journal as much as the NY Times for their journalism, but no more, as the new ownership has decided to let their editorial stance bleed into the reporting.

carpbrain: SomebodyElsesShoes: Realpolitik420: But like Nancy Pelosi and waterboarding, he chose not to speak out until it became politically convenient.

I think this is why most people are pissed with Pelosi, and rightfully so. Speaking out when it is only politically convenient is very, very telling.

Is it possible that she wasn't legally allowed to say anything about her breifings? I'm really asking, I dont know.

The main point here -- many people have pointed this out, but it has not yet been recognized in the wider popular perception -- is that it's total bullshiat to "consult Congress" by "briefing" four members. If there is a matter of law at hand, e.g., legalizing torture, then the matter has to be put before the Congress as a whole, as Congress WRITES THE LAWS. There is no Constitutional meaning to "informing" a few select members of Congress about some bogus policy.

I think I read somewhere recently a blogger saying that 'it can't be that congress is filled with traitors' so why the limited breifings on this and many other topics? But given the us vs. them mentality of the bush/cheney executive, they clearly believed that. Sad, and ultimately destructive.

libbynomore2: well of COURSE the story is completely false and totally bogus!!!!!!

What kind of idiot would actually think it was true?

The Senate Armed Services Committee's report into detainee abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo. (pdf)

In his testimony to the Senate Committee, Maj. Burney wrote that "a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link ... there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

Some of us are actually more concerned about the truth of what happened than which party lied.

Don't misunderstand me, once we know for sure that an illegal act was committed, we will seek justice.

What I find difficult to deal with is that there are people out there, perhaps you, yourself, who would not demand justice, especially considering that we both believe in the unshakable application of law and order.

SomebodyElsesShoes: carpbrain: SomebodyElsesShoes: Realpolitik420: But like Nancy Pelosi and waterboarding, he chose not to speak out until it became politically convenient.

I think this is why most people are pissed with Pelosi, and rightfully so. Speaking out when it is only politically convenient is very, very telling.

Is it possible that she wasn't legally allowed to say anything about her breifings? I'm really asking, I dont know.

The main point here -- many people have pointed this out, but it has not yet been recognized in the wider popular perception -- is that it's total bullshiat to "consult Congress" by "briefing" four members. If there is a matter of law at hand, e.g., legalizing torture, then the matter has to be put before the Congress as a whole, as Congress WRITES THE LAWS. There is no Constitutional meaning to "informing" a few select members of Congress about some bogus policy.

I think I read somewhere recently a blogger saying that 'it can't be that congress is filled with traitors' so why the limited breifings on this and many other topics? But given the us vs. them mentality of the bush/cheney executive, they clearly believed that. Sad, and ultimately destructive.

Agreed. The whole idea of these limited briefings is a bizarre construct that reflects nothing more than a Public Relations mechanism as opposed to something related to law or due process according to the balance of powers laid out in the Constitution.

purntronics: libbynomore2: well of COURSE the story is completely false and totally bogus!!!!!!

What kind of idiot would actually think it was true?

Oh....wait.......

The Huffpo McKosmeisters

Bob16: It's The New Republic.

The same geniuses who "knew" there were WMD's in Iraq.

Only in America. I need to move.

Those two statements are not the same. You should read them again slowly.

Random Reality Check: Some of us are actually more concerned about the truth of what happened than which party lied.

Don't misunderstand me, once we know for sure that an illegal act was committed, we will seek justice.

What I find difficult to deal with is that there are people out there, perhaps you, yourself, who would not demand justice, especially considering that we both believe in the unshakable application of law and order.

You may as well be trying to explain calculus to a canary.

Mordant: You may as well be trying to explain calculus to a canary.

I'm actually trying to explain this to any of the lurkers here who might have mistakenly gotten the impression that libbynomore2 has some kind of a point. Allowing even a ridiculous comment like that to stand unchallenged might give credence to the talking point.

On a lesser level, there is also the brute force pounding that anyone, troll or otherwise, should endure which will make it harder and harder for them to continue their tirades as we keep shoving the truth in their face.

Personally, I like the idea of forcing these assholes to call our troops liars when we bring our military personnel before Congress to testify under oath as to what they know - because after all of the right wing's bluster in calling the rest of us traitors and troops haters, they are now faced with admitting their talking points were lies or calling our military liars. Ooo, awkward.

God, one would think that the pressure must be unbearable - of course, we all know better.

I'm dubious about the accuracy of the article.

....in the 2.908736463 seconds I skimmed the comments there and the 1.02321654654 seconds I skimmed the comments here, I'm going to just guess that most feel the same.

detfrost1: I'm dubious about the accuracy of the article.

....in the 2.908736463 seconds I skimmed the comments there and the 1.02321654654 seconds I skimmed the comments here, I'm going to just guess that most feel the same.

What's interesting is that virtually all of the comments about the article on the New Republic website were deeply negative about the article and the author. One can only hope that this is a death knell for James Kirchick as a contributor to this site.

Kudos to the war criminals, their apologists and their enablers for all of these round the clock, distracting non-news items.

Wilkerson on Feith, et al, FTA:

A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn't open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel's interest than our own.

Oh yeah, it's time to smear him. He said that which cannot be said, BURN HIM!!!

Did Stephen Glass write this piece?

libbynomore2: well of COURSE the story is completely false and totally bogus!!!!!!

What kind of idiot would actually think it was true?

Oh....wait.......

The Huffpo McKosmeisters

HAHA! You think torture is a partisan issue. You are dumb.

Awww....hell, some of the best intel they got were the ones they waterboarded in Pelosi's office.

Yeah, Larry Wilkerson, Long time Aide-de-Camp to Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, I am totally sure, had absolutely NO sources inside the Pentagon that kept him up to date once he retired. And Certainly none of the dissident Pentagon generals during the Rumsfeld era fed him ANY info after he emerged as one of the leading voices against the war.


there's retarded and then there's New Republic retarded

Magorn: Yeah, Larry Wilkerson, Long time Aide-de-Camp to Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, I am totally sure, had absolutely NO sources inside the Pentagon that kept him up to date once he retired. And Certainly none of the dissident Pentagon generals during the Rumsfeld era fed him ANY info after he emerged as one of the leading voices against the war.


there's retarded and then there's New Republic retarded

Read the comment under the article. They tear the author a new one.