John McCain, still a torture opponent:
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.
Marc Theissen hardest hit. Now to get consensus-y.
I don't pretend that anything will produce an end to this new debate over torture. The fact that we're debating torture diminishes our standing as a civilization. But moving beyond it: perhaps, after the actionable intelligence is drained from the bin Laden documents, it would be useful to reconvene the 9/11 Commission and have them review the ten-year hunt for bin Laden. It's not helpful for something that looked like a failure on May 1 to be retconned into an inevitable, inexorable success on May 2. The tale of the bin Laden hunt -- and the lessons to learn from it -- is the logical final chapter of the commission's 2004 report. And the gravitas of the 9/11 Commission, delivered through a public report, would create the closest thing possible to a narrative that can stand proudly before history.
Update: Marcy makes everything better.
Why the commission said it's investigations were impeded last time. Do you want Phillip Zelicow in there again, too? Everything had to go through him last time, despite the fact that he was a total Bush lackey. He co authored a book with Condaleeza, was part of the 2000 Bush transition team, and even helped pen the Iraq invasion. This was a fair investigation the first time around? A report published, riddled with footnotes obtained from water boarding? I mean, I think you're request for an investigation is awesome, and needed, but I remember how disappointed I was by that circus. I remember the administration fought Long and Hard against there being any "investigation" at all.
Thanks for the chance to say my two cents, I appreciate the thought and caring behind your idea very much. Here's a great link to an interview Amy Goodman did with Zelicow, please give it a watch, she dies a great job: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/7/exclusive_former_9_11_commission_executive
Posted by: Thanks 4 hearing Me Out | 05/12/2011 at 07:31 AM
Yeah and if the Commission reconvenes maybe GWB will testify in public, without Edgar Bergen Cheney's hand up his back making his mouth move.
Posted by: cervantes | 05/12/2011 at 12:22 PM