| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3025
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 4:51 pm: | 
|
This look interesting (to those who are interested in things). Below confirms my worst fear about the war on terror and the way it is being conducted. Panic and political cover. Stupidity at the top.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211_ pf.html
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.
...
"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. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered." |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1515
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Outrageous. Outrageous. Outrageous.
Your president at work, your administration at work, your preferred goverment at work. Torturing anyone gets us no useful information. Torturing a nut gets us whatever fantasy they can dream up. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5524
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Themp, thanks for pointing out the article.
Excuse my language, but I had to say "Holy Cr@p" when I read this from your link -
Quote:The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
That's incredibly sad to read. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1536
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 9:56 pm: |
|
I dont think anyone would have anticipated the breach of the levees.
I dont think anyone would have anticipated the insurgency.
I dont think anyone would have anticipated they would use airplanes on 9-11.
I dont think anyone would have anticipated that Saddam wouldn't have WMDs
I dont think anyone would have anticipated that North Korea would build a BOMB.
I dont think anyone would have anticipated that North Korea would test a missle.
At what point does 100% of America say ENOUGH.
 |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 599
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:14 pm: |
|
When Gore is re-elected?
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:36 pm: |
|
I love this. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5525
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:45 pm: |
|
"Love this"?
Some guy from the CIA (hint, probably not a flower child) relates how the President couldn't have cared less (and, in fact, made fun of the guy who did care) about gathering threats being detected in the summer of 2001.
The "When Gore is re-elected" jokes seem kind of sad, when compared to this demonstration of - lack of interest, to choose a mild term.
Those of us who knew one or more of the thousands killed as a result of this "lack of interest", should probably use stronger language. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:01 pm: |
|
Nohero,
Put away the victim card. I lived in Maplewood during 9/11 and worked at the WTC complex and was there that day. I waited like many at Penn Station for the trains to start running again so I could get home. I knew people who were killed so you can put the pity card back in your pocket.
And yes, I love it, every time a liberal poster uses 9/11 to make a political point. It only shows how ridiculous most of you have become. Thankfully, while you may live in a state blinded by hatred, the rest of the country rejects your viewpoint and will reject it once again this November. And yes, I love that. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5526
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:14 pm: |
|
It's not a matter of hatred, it's a simple consideration of the facts, now that they are trickling out. If what you say about yourself is true, then I am not sure why you are not bothered by the President's apparent lack of interest prior to the attack on September 11.
And, I think you know full well, that the Administration has been using September 11 as a political point far more than any of its opponents.
So, please don't sit there and use that "put away the victim card" nonsense here, if you don't mind. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1739
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 8:22 am: |
|
Nohero-
The greatest terrorist attack in US history happened during this administration, why wouldn't they talk about it? Especially with a threat hat still existing?
-SLK |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 601
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 9:20 am: |
|
The sick joke is revealed in A Thousand Years for Revenge, by Peter Lance.
Based totally upon trial records, exhibits and interviews with named individuals, it exposes how our own FBI and CIA really did know enough to stop 9/11.
And how named responsible ball-droppers were rewarded for their service.
The attack was planned during eight years of the philanderer's romp time, and the trigger was figuratively pulled when Bush arrived.
Don't blame Bush for CIA and FBI incompetence.
jd |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 617
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:27 am: |
|
What is a threat hat?
Sounds kewl. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:54 am: |
|
Sorry, Joel, but this happened on Bush's and Ashcroft's watch. They were more concerned about naked statues than terrorists. Bush got the warning and chose to ignore it. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1519
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:06 am: |
|
Bush got no only the Aug 6th PDB but also was briefed by the outgoing Clinton administration that Bin Laden and terrorism was the largest concern. He did not follow up and did not listen to his advisors. He assigned Cheney to look after this and Cheney did not even convene the committee tasked to look after terrorism.
nice revisionism joel. In 10 years will you still be talking about how its all Clintons fault? just really out of touch with reality. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7462
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:31 am: |
|
Why do libs hate America? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14782
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
I guess, in that case, that the 1993 attack in the WTC was Bush 41's fault.
Oh, and Reagan's economic upturn was Carter's fault.
|
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1741
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:49 am: |
|
So previous administrations are not at all responsible for today's terrorist threat on our country?
You are joking me right?
The entire country was sleeping for a long time. It is unfortunate that it took 9/11 to wake us up.
But it sounds like some of you want to roll over and go back to sleep...
-SLK |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:50 am: |
|
D'oh! Straw got us again. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14787
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
Certainly the previous administration is responsible. That's why in a briefing around inauguration time, they told the Bush administration about terrorist threats in general and bin Laden specifically. They listed this as among the three top threats. The willful ignorance of these tips by the Bushies is well documented.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1161
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Nohero,
I have never stated I like what I am hearing coming out. I don't. I just don't like the blame game. I trust our government whether Dems or Repubs are in charge. I believe if our government and Pres knew something they would have acted. I believe this for Bush and Clinton and all of them. I respect and consider all our Presidents to be patriots. And if you haven't noticed, I rarely bring up Clinton. Two reasons - I think he was a decent President and he is gone so let's move on. Most of my conservative cohorts do bring him up at times, but I guarantee after Bush is gone after 8 years in office, the usual libs will be using him for years as well. It's human nature.
Getting back to my point, I think Reagan should have done more, I think Bush 41 should have removed Saddam back then, and I blame Carter for not doing a damn thing when we basically had the first 9/11 at our embassy. I know Carter is a decent man and a true patriot who believed what he did was the right thing, and to his credit all the hostages came out alive. But the precedent he set was horrendous.
As for the political use of 9/11, both sides have been doing this from the beginning. The New York local Dems couldn't kiss Bush's or Rudy's back side enough in the weeks after the attack. Even Hillary and Chuckyboy were in every photo op. If you believe the Repubs are the only side using 9/11 for political purposes then you are naive. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2811
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 9:43 pm: |
|
I trust our government whether Dems or Repubs are in charge.
Now I see the real difference between you and me. I don't trust the government whichever gang is in charge. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 3:15 pm: |
|
That is a difference. Remember, trust, is a loose word. I trust them to keep us safe from invaders, but I sure as heck wouldn't let them balance my checkbook or baby sit my kid. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3426
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 3:25 pm: |
|
I'm curious, and I mean this sincerely...
You say you trust them to keep us safe from invaders. But they cannot keep people fom illegally entering our country on a daily basis. So on what do you base your trust in the government? |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 7:25 pm: |
|
True dat Rastro. I don't trust them then. But someone is going to win in an election so I could either vote for my corrupt guys or your corrupt guys. I'll vote for my corrupt guys and then mistrust them. I told you trust was a loose word. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page