About This Blog
In today's Akron Beacon Journal opinion page, an opinion page that is losing touch with reality moreso each and every week, there is a piece defending waterboarding written by Mark Bowden. The piece focuses on Abu Zubaydah, captured in March 2002, and subsequently tortured. That torture included waterboarding.
Bowden writes this in defense of torture....
When captured in Pakistan in 2002, Zubaydah was one of the world's most notorious terrorists.
The 31-year-old Saudi had compiled in his young life 37 different aliases and was under a sentence of death in Jordan for a failed plot to blow up two hotels jammed with American and Israeli tourists.
The evidence was not hearsay: Zubaydah was overheard on the phone planning the attacks, which were then thwarted. He was a key planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, was thought to be field commander of the attack that killed 17 U.S. sailors on the USS Cole, and was involved in planning a score of other terror attacks, successful and unsuccessful. He was considered to be a primary recruiter and manager of al-Qaida training camps.
He was, in short, a highly successful, fully engaged, career mass murderer. Link
Although Beacon editors printed this opinion by Bowden.......most of what Bowden wrote has been long ago debunked.
The author Ron Suskind has already documented the case of Abu Zubaydah. Read Suskind's account....
Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be. CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries "in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3" -- a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail "what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said." Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality."
Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States." And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques.
In interviews with intelligence officers, Suskind often finds them baffled by White House statements. "Why the hell did the President have to put us in a box like this?" one top CIA official asked about the overblown public portrait of Abu Zubaydah. But Suskind sees a deliberate management choice: Bush ensnared his director of central intelligence at the time, George J. Tenet, and many others in a new kind of war in which action and evidence were consciously divorced. Link
Why would there be a dual narrative about Abu Zubaydah......one accurate with direct sourcing by Suskind and one, which the Beacon printed today, completely fictitious? Here's the answer.....
Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied.Link
All truth must be sacrificed for the sake of George W. Bush. The Akron Beacon Journal opinion page editors, apparently, agree.
Abu Zubaydah was a schitzophrenic nut-case, not a top level al-Qaeda boss or terror mastermind. However, as it is with most all things Bush, lies and fabrications must be continued so that Junior doesn't "lose face". That's what has happened dozens of times over the last 6 years. Obedient newspaper editors, like the Beacon's, continue, all over this country, to echo the lies from a criminal White House. The Dear Leader must not be allowed to "lose face".
I'm actually embarassed that today's Beacon Journal saw fit to print an article whose substance has no basis in fact.....and the truth of which has been known for awhile now. Ron Suskind didn't write his book, "The One Percent Doctrine", which included this Zubaydah account, in a vacuum.
Finally,....when "action and evidence" are "consciously divorced", as they have been over the last 6 years with the Junior/Cheney rogue regime,.....newspapers, with all their serious editors and reporters, are supposed to share with readers the truth of how and why our leaders words and actions have become "consciously divorced" from empirical "evidence", if in fact that is the case. Sadly, this seems to no longer be part of their job descriptions.
Instead, as with the Beacon's choice today, newpapers, with all their serious editors and wire services and in-the-know reporters, "consciously divorce" the words and actions of this Pinocchio President from the empirical "evidence" that's easily available to any who search. They allow yarns of falsehood to be spun on their opinion pages, I suppose for the same reason George Tenet caved-in to every Bush Junior demand.
The lies and misinformation and secrecy of this White House are historic and globally significant. When Junior, or one of Junior's lackeys, have been caught misinforming or lying,....Iraq run-up lies, Libby/Plame lies, lies about wiretapping Americans without warrants.....or lying about a schitzoid Islamic gopher.....it has become the default position of most newspapers, like the Beacon, to do their best to help this, the worst president in all of American history, "save face". Truth be damned.