About This Blog
My blog buddy King last week....
What our media hasn't bothered to tell you is that the early interrogation and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT's) used against terrorist monsters like al-Nashiri, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Abu Zubaydah worked, just like former VP Dick Cheney said they did. Cheney was ridiculed endlessly for saying that, but the CIA IG report leaves no doubt.
Defenders of America's use of cruel and illegal torture tactics cling to the thread of their own devisings that "torture worked". Led by The Dick, many conservatives have desperately sought justifications for the obvious illegalities of torture. It could be that conservative watchers of "24" have been convinced by Kiefer that torture is good and just...or it could be that conservatives don't want to admit that their Super-Patriotic Heroes committed war crimes, because then, THEY, would be shown to be mistaken.
Whatever the motivation might be, these torture defenders are anxious, even frenzied at times, to find something, anything, to defend their indefensible gibberish......they'll grasp for virtually anything that even remotely, on first glance, can be construed to support their position.
That's what King from All Da King's Men does in the above block quote. Look at his words. Torture, or the name given to torture by the easily-queasied, "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", according to King's reading of the recent CIA report on interrogations, "worked." Here's King in his own words....
The EIT's worked, whether we like them or not.
It's odd that King is so cock-sure that the CIA's interrogation report leaves "no doubt" that torture "worked" to save American lives. Why? Because even Fran Townsend, George W. Bush's Terrorism Advisor said of the CIA's report....."the report doesn't say that."
The truth in 32 seconds....
Transcript of Fran Townsend's comment...
It’s very difficult to draw a cause and effect, because it’s not clear when techniques were applied vs. when that information was received. It’s implicit. It seems, when you read the report, that we got the — the — the most critical information after techniques had been applied. But the report doesn’t say that.
How it is that King sees words in the CIA report leaving "no doubt" that torture "worked" to save U.S lives....when the Bushie insider Townsend doesn't......will have to be taken up with King.
I realize that many conservative supporters of torture could give a sh*t whether torture "worked" or whether the CIA report leaves "no doubt" about the wonder-working salvation power of acting like savages......it just doesn't matter, according to some conservatives. Their defense of institutionalized American savagery is simply....'if America is doing it, it is the right, just, necessary and proper thing to do, because America, of all world countries, is singularly exceptional.'
So, there's that.
However, in King's case, I'm beginning to think a reading and comprehension dysfunction is at work. I can't be 100% sure, you understand...but it kinda, sorta, looks that way.....
Now, don't forget.....King said of the CIA report that there is "no doubt" that torture "worked."
From King's Fox News link included in All Da King's Men's August 25th posting....
It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah's increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative.
With respect to A-Nashiri, [redacted] reported two waterboard sessions in November 2002, after which the psychologist/interrogators determined that Al-Nashiri was compliant….Because of the litany of techniques used by different interrogators over a relatively short period of time, it is difficult to identify exactly why Al-Nashiri became more willing to provide information.
King has "no doubt" that the CIA report proves that torture "worked." The report from which King quoted, however, actually says, "...it's not possible to say definitively...", and, "....it is difficult to identify exactly...."
So...is it a reading and comprehension problem? Is it a wishful thinking problem? What is it that motivates some conservatives and libertarians to not be able to read and comprehend relatively clear language?
This CIA report reading and comprehension discussion can serve as a case study for the larger information wars that have blanketed America for a number of years.
It also helps in understanding how it was that America could so easily be talked into attacking Iraq, a non-threatening country that had done absolutely nothing to warrant being attacked and occupied by U.S forces for going on 7 years now.
It's all about deception......self-imposed because of comprehension in reading problems and wishful thinking, partisan blindness.....or gullibility. I'll leave it to others to determine which form of deception applies here.
Postscript: I just remembered another oddity. Ms. Condi Rice told the 9-11 Commission that Junior Leader didn't want to "swat at flies" in the months leading up to 9-11. Now we know why. The deviants of the Bush administration preferred catching anything that could be characterized as a "fly", and as many youthful deviants would prefer, torturing those flies by tearing wings and legs off one at a time. So there's that.
And there's also this....
Cheney thinks it was a sterling success when it came to national security and counter-terrorism. Perhaps there's something to this. After all, except for the catastrophic events of 9/11, and the anthrax attacks against Americans, and terrorist attacks against U.S. allies, and the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush's inability to capture those responsible for 9/11, and waging an unnecessary war that inspired more terrorists, and the success terrorists had in exploiting Bush's international unpopularity, the Bush/Cheney record on counter-terrorism was awesome.