So much for further assumtive baloney.

Here is some further. There is no link to the IG report itself in the link Radio posted. And, just going by his post, it is his speculation that the IG took the figures by counting while watching tapes. Maybe, but he is only saying the IG saw the tapes and wrote the report. I don’t see any direct quote saying that he counted the times as he was watching the tapes for that he watched all the tapes all the way through or anything specific.

Like cinnamon, who jumped to some false conclusion that I made up the redaction thing, this is also a false jumped to conclusion.

Not so with my feeling on the Red Cross report. First, why don’t you read it? it is posted on the New York Review of Books. When you read the entire thing, you will see how thorough it is. They interviewed ALL 14 high value detainees. It is the most complete picture of what happened from the detainees themselves. Not some desk jockey writing a report.

They said directly what I said here in quotes. It is plain what they mean and requires no speculation. No speculation.

Anyway, to suggest that someone who was waterboarded 30 times a day for 5 days straight would forget it, is quite unrealistic. Very far fetched. And, please also explain how you could even water board someone 30 times in a day?

Because of the contrary testimony of KSM and the unreality of doing it 30 times in a day, I say I suspect there is some error or other trouble with the IG report regarding the definition of “uses,” etc.

You say the IG report says it plainly, it does. I say the Red Cross report says it plainly, and it does. I come down on the side of the guy who was really there. And, KSM’s statements and Z’s statements on this fit in with the rest of the Red Cross report.

So,

Logical alignment with the other parts of the report
Logical alignment with the other 14’s experience
Direct statements of direct personal experience
They were actually there
The Red Cross believes them
No evidence that any of the 14 forgot or minimized their experiences
The detail of what they say happened
They both have no reason to minimize the number of times

The IG report number is not believable by common sense
The IG was not there
Uncertainly as to how he got the number
No link to the actual IG report

Those are all the reasons I believe the 183 number and 83 number are suspect. On top of that, it is odd that both numbers end in “3″ (going by the numbers in the link provided). It may very well be that the correct number is 18 and 8, and that the memo or report contains an error. THAT would align with the Red Cross report and the statements of both men and bring all into coodination.

That last IS speculation. Both, again, use of it aligns the data very well.

But, of course, it doesn’t make for a dramatic story of world class “journalism.”

rofl

So you prefer to take the word of a detainee, one whose recollections might be distorted from the actual events of water boarding dozens of times repeatedly vs. the number sent to the OLC from the CIA interrogators.

Fair enough. I asked you yesterday if you would then accept that this discrepancy needs to be resolved by an investigation since in the latter case they far exceeded the amounts allowed by the initial “legitimizing OLC opinions”. You didn’t respond.