“…Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) contended at the hearing that sometimes severe techniques need to be used in emergencies and against the nation’s top enemies, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks alleged architect, who was subjected to waterboarding in CIA custody. Franks said that Mohammed experienced just 90 seconds of waterboarding and gave up important information about al-Qaeda…”
- “Waterboarding Is Torture, Says Ex-Navy Instructor,” by Josh White, Washington Post, November 9, 2007, page A4

Here’s the link to the story at ThinkProgress.org:

Limbaugh’s Proof That Torture Works: McCain Was ‘Broken By The North Vietnamese’

Even after Limbaugh stabbed Senator McCain in the back over and over in the campaign, Senator McCain came to Limbaugh’s defense when President Obama made a comment that said something like you can’t get anything done if you are listening to Rush Limbaugh.

I still grudgingly admire Senator McCain. His military service and life story are heroic. However, if he can’t strongly and unapologetically respond to this insult not just to him, but to the American POWs who suffered alongside him, I have to ask what is missing that he used to have?

Senator McCain Republican friends will let this insult go unanswered, because they fear Limbaugh. I bet the only condemnation Limbaugh will receive for this will come from Democrats.

Article by Robt. Sheer, The Nation May 2001.

….the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that “rogue regime” for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God.

“May 2001″, just shortly before they knew bin Laden was sending his troops to America to attack.

Did this really finance the attacks or did the Taleban use that money in other ways? Remember, bin Laden had some money and a lot of charity money sent his way for funding.

There is still a big question of how independent bin Laden was or if he had a sponsor and some ulterior motives (rather than just jihad).

If we got Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (sp) and bin Laden might be dead, then who is left in AQ leadership except al Zawahiri?

KSM’s nickname, Mukhtar. Here’s what the text of the report says about the nickname.

When additional pieces of the puzzle arrived in the spring and summer of 2001, they were not put together.

The first piece of the puzzle concerned some intriguing information associated with a person known as “Mukhtar” that the CIA had begun analyzing in April 2001.The CIA did not know who Mukhtar was at the time—only that he associated with al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaydah and that, based on the nature of the information, he was evidently involved in planning possible terrorist activities. 110

The second piece of the puzzle was some alarming information regarding KSM. On June 12, 2001, a CIA report said that “Khaled”was actively recruiting people to travel outside Afghanistan, including to the United States where colleagues were reportedly already in the country to meet them, to carry out terrorist-related activities for Bin Ladin. …

Holy cow! Nobody could have predicted Al Qaeda was going to attack IN America. And apparently nobody could have known there were AQ allies already in America that summer. Remember, this is BEFORE the August briefing to Dubya.

You’re making two false assumptions.

1) That anyone else sees this as a conflict.

2) That, if this weren’t true, the CIA would remain silent about it for 5 days.

Don’t you think, after 5 days with not peep from CIA that those numbers are inaccurate, you can give it a rest?

Zubaydeh was Al Qaida’s “Concierge”…not their #3. In fact, even though he was arranging all of these things most of it was probably presented to him as unrelated to AQ activities. After all, he ran a camp for mujahideen who were coming into Afghanistan.

He may have had a lot of information in his mind, but they were asking the wrong questions. He needed to be groomed and have events placed in context for proper recall. Instead they tortured him and torture creates stress, which simply confuses events and names.

Indeed.
In post #72 in the McCain thread, I posted the following quote from former military interrogator Tony Lagournis’ book:

“I spoke to Joe Navarro, a retired FBI agent and an expert in the field of interrogation. Joe has had great success in gathering intelligence during interrogations and interviews without the use of torture. He outlined four main reasons why torture is ineffective. First, talk can’t be confused with truth. A torture victim will say anything, true or false, to get the pain to stop. Second, the stress pain creates confuses the subject and he simply can’t remember details well enough to produce good intelligence. Third, the torture subject may die or go into shock, in which case no information can be obtained from him. Finally, and perhaps most compelling, the torture victim, if he tells the interrogator anything at all, is likely to give one piece of information, or very little information, whereas a cooperative subject will talk and continue talking. Joe added that he believes that torture strengthens the resolve of the detainee, citing Senator John McCain, who, after having his shoulder torn from its socket by interrogators in Vietnam, was more determined than ever to keep his silence.”