Torture of Zubaida foiled no plots

[XMan]

I've not seen this Post story picked up by any other papers. Perhaps this is why:

http://corner.nationalreview.c...hhNjdiMmY4MDkzNjRlMDY=

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.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: XMan
I've not seen this Post story picked up by any other papers. Perhaps this is why:

http://corner.nationalreview.c...hhNjdiMmY4MDkzNjRlMDY=

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.

:roll: PJ already tried this and it was already blown out by bowfinger...

On the contrary, if you read it closely, you will find this story essentially corroborates the Washington Post article, stating this information and the information about Padilla was provided before the torture began. From a little over half-way through the piece:

"Since his capture, Abu Zubaydah had provided the CIA with the critical link that had identified KSM as ?Muktar? and the mastermind of 9/11, as well as information that led to the capture of Padilla and the disruption of a planned attack on the American homeland. The CIA knew he had more information that could save American lives, but now he had stopped talking. So the CIA used enhanced interrogation techniques to get him talking again -- and these techniques worked."

By the way, what ProJo neglects to mention -- he regularly fails to link sources when their credibility is questionable -- is that this story isn't part of the National Review's formal, presumably somewhat vetted content, but rather from their blog section. The writer is Marc Thiessen, Bush's former speechwriter. It's also noteworthy that Thiessen cites no proof to back his stories. We must simply take his word for it ... or not. A quick glance at some of Thiessen's other work suggests he is hardly impartial or objective.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
It's also noteworthy that Thiessen cites no proof to back his stories.

What exactly is the Washington Post's 'proof'??

"former senior government officials"

Isn't Thiessen himself a 'former senior government official'??

Are you suggesting that the Washington's Posts "former senior government officials" are the only ones who are to be believed and that everyone else should be ignored?

Or are you just trying to discredit the guy because you don't like what he said?