« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

CIA chief: Waterboarding aided bin Laden raid

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 4th, 2011 at 06:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

If you haven’t read this piece by Dan McLaughlin, consider it your must read of the day.

For the past 48 hours, lefties have been falling all over themselves and contorting themselves in knots to downplay enhanced interrogations and the role waterboarding might have played in getting Bin Laden.

One of the most humorous contortions came from Spencer Ackerman, a lefty hack who has taken one of my favorite blogs and destroyed it with mindless nonsense and leftwing talking points that grossly distort and distract from the awesomeness that had been Wired’s Danger Room blog.

To Ackerman, waterboarding had nothing to do with getting Bin Laden. Never mind that his post conflicts with his premise — it is standard leftist trope that waterboarding can never, ever get anything useful and should never be done because it is torture.

Last night, on the NBC Nightly News, CIA Chief Leon Panetta blew more holes in the anti-waterboarding arguments and denials than were put in Osama Bin Laden’s head.


Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday.

“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

Panetta, who in a 2009 CIA confirmation hearing declared “waterboarding is torture and it’s wrong,” said Tuesday that debate about its use will continue.

“Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.

As Dan noted yesterday, it seems some of the information came after waterboarding and not during a waterboarding session. But, to say one had no relation to the other is to leave “with is the contention that when a guy confesses to the good cop, that means the bad cop was not a factor in anything that followed (the phrase “fruit of the poisonous tree” may ring a bell to some lawyers).”

Exactly right.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    They know it can happen again. And again. Get over it, lefties. It worked, and it gave your guy the perfect opportunity to act.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    If you have a long memory, which I do, it is important to remember how Clinton destroyed our special operations forces. It is also important to remember that Obama as a state senator was stridently anti-war and anti-military.

    I find it somewhat ironic that the rebuilding of JSOC under Rumsfeld and Bush, which was roundly criticized by Democrats at the time (and prevented by them for years before 11th September attacks) enabled us to ultimately take out UBL.

    But we will forget that the intel, methods,laws and armed forces, which were all opposed by Democrats, culminated in achieving its goal and keeping us safe.

    Obama made the right call. But I have to ask; knowing what we now know- who would have called it differently? Well let’s not focus on material questions. It’s time for us to bow to His Highness and sing hallelujah to God for bringing him to us.

  • paredneck

    is the “must read” of the day.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/04/torture/index.html

    It’s sad that you have to fall all over yourselves to find ways to transfer most, if not all, of the credit from the current President to the former one.

    Here’s another “must read:”

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/the-republican-spin.html

    I know, I know…Greenwald and Sullivan. But here’s the important part:

    What really broke the case? From the NYT:

    “Operation Cannonball, a [2005] bureaucratic reshuffling … placed more C.I.A. case officers on the ground in Pakistan and Afghanistan. With more agents in the field, the C.I.A. finally got the courier?s family name. With that, they turned to one of their greatest investigative tools ? the National Security Agency began intercepting telephone calls and e-mail messages between the man?s family and anyone inside Pakistan. From there they got his full name. Last July, Pakistani agents working for the C.I.A. spotted him driving his vehicle near Peshawar.”

    [Sullivan]: Old-fashioned, painstaking, labor-intensive intelligence work. The American way. We never needed to stoop to bin Laden’s standards to get bin Laden. We needed merely to follow our long-tested humane procedures.

    Quit trying to justify the use of torture just because you don’t know how else to respond.

  • earlgrey

    It seems you lefitsts are all about making sure workers get recognition and that workers are credited with success when it is a private company or corporation.

    I just don’t understand why so little credit is going to the workers in the CIA, and most importatntly the Navy Seals that risked their lives for this mission. Most Americans couldn’t even pass the test required to be admitted to Navy Seals training, much less las tthe training itself.

    Never mind those guys, let’s heap the praise on the guy on the golf course.

    The Daily Beast and Salon aren’t exactly known as non partisan sources. So i’ll skip your little reading assignment.

  • Wes_W

    are you the same person? You have some of the same tendencies. Both of you posted here in Sept/Oct of 2008, you disappeared for 3 years, and now both of you are back dumping liberal sewage for comments.

  • paredneck

    Just say it. It’s not that hard!

    And yes, the Navy Seals team deserves credit…the most credit. But don’t forget who their Commander-in-Chief is. Obama knew about bin Laden’s location for months. He could have just started dropping bombs on the compound. Instead, he waited and oversaw a surgical strike that got bin Laden.

    And please…the golf reference? Like Bush never spent ANY time on the golf course. Or a month at his “ranch” in Texas clearing brush during almost all of August 2001.

  • jb13

    Are you saying Leon Panetta, the man picked by your president to be head of the CIA and now SecDef, is lying? Or are Greenwald and Sullivan — two partisan hacks known for twisting the facts to support their guy — not telling the full story?

    Panetta said waterboarding and “torture” got us info that directly led to the killing of bin Laden. You and your Leftist hacks say it’s not true. Pray tell: Who should I believe?

    That aside, however, I presume you are also going to tell me that the NSA obtained a warrant to monitor the calls and emails? No? Then the entire operation is unconstitutional, is it not?

    Also, I presume you have a huge problem with the fact that Obama used American military personnel as a hit squad? No? Hmmmm… I seem to recall your beloved partisans blasting Bush for such behavior.

    And finally, where is the outrage that the U.S. dared to defile the borders of Pakistan, a sovereign nation, without cooperating with the local authorities through proper diplomatic channels? Doesn’t this qualify as an illegal act of war? No? Hmmmm… Your partisan glasses are firmly in place, I see.

    See, as a conservative, I never had a problem with any of this. It’s hypocritical Leftists like you who have a lot of explaining to do about your lack of concern over how this operation was carried out.

    I can rest content knowing that my principles were not violated AND the piece of, um… garbage is dead and can never trouble another nation, family or human being.

    And, one more thing, the “turning point” you referenced occurred in 2005. Google “Hassan Ghul” and “2004″ and tell me why, suddenly, in 2005, President Bush (NOT Obama) decided that it was worthwhile to flood Afghanistan and Pakistan with CIA operatives? Hmmmm… Curious.

  • paredneck

    But I do have a 2-3 year 12-step recovery program in place every time I decide to comment on here.

  • paredneck

    “Greenwald and Sullivan ? two partisan hacks known for twisting the facts to support their guy.”

    I’ll maybe give you Sullivan.

    But Greenwald!? Yes, he’s partisan. But I don’t know anyone on the left that has been more critical of Obama. I mean, just in the last week, Greenwald has criticized Obama’s pick for the CIA and accused the administration (accurately, it seems) of exaggerating how the bin Laden raid went down.

  • earlgrey

    Obama has played more golf during his nearly 2.5 years in office than W did in 8 years.

  • gekster

    take 6 years next time.

  • earlgrey

    sort of already give away the tale this guy is going to weave? Of course he is going to find some way to say that it had nothing to do with EIT, and with something as complicated and hopefully confidential (you know the NYT likes to give these things away when an R is in office) as intelligence gathering the truth will be hard to sort out. Isn’t that one leg your standing on getting a little tired.

  • Common_Cents

    It is a faux choice to give obama the illusion of making a choice. bombing is too imprecise to take out the entire compound especially w/ Paki military living in the area and close to their training facilities. Plus no kill confirmation on the ground.

    Secondly, Obama had no choice but to do this as if he didn’t, the word would leak for sure that he has no spine, especially w/ solid intel.

    No sale to the idiot pathetic attempt to spin this into a win for nobama. He was on the freakin golf course for #$% sakes.

    It’s comical when the left gets their talking points. they all say the exact same thing! they might as well just hold up the memo to the camera. Barbara Boxer said in no part did waterboarding provide any of the specific information. LOL.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • Bill S

    His next program is liable to be permanent, because I’m very close to putting an end to his commenting tenure. Defending Glenns Greenwald is a huge “tell.”

  • paredneck

    And he caught Osama bin Laden. You’re point?

  • lineholder

    but that doesn’t define to what extent President Obama was directly involved in providing strong, positive leadership that led to those events.

    You’re on a fishing expedition, paredneck, amongst a group of people who question even those on the Republican side of fence when it comes to their leadership abilities and skills.

    You’re wasting your time. You know that don’t you?

  • paredneck

    Trust me. I’m no Obama fan. I’m not voting for him in 2012 because of the budget bill that recently passed.

  • earlgrey

    As to him finding osama bin laden while out on the golf course that reminds me a lot of OJ Simpson’s relentless pursuit of golf pros around the nation that he suspected of killing his ex-wife.

  • paredneck

    Aren’t we tolerant of differing viewpoints. You know, this is the problem with the way our media landscape has transformed over the last decade or so. We retreat into our partisan corners and talk to each other and demonize anyone that disagrees with us.

    I comment on liberal blogs also (and, obviously more frequently). But whether it is on liberal or conservative blogs, I’m always astonished at how most commenters are close-minded and hateful towards anyone that disagrees with their point of view.

  • earlgrey

    I have heard leftist throw that word around to describe everything from beheading to catty comments on fashion sense.

  • lineholder

    you do understand why we question things to the extent that we do?

    The complacency regarding the quality and type of leadership being provided among those in our government, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a really destructive influence on our nation.

    That badly needs to change.

    We question ALL of them where this is concerned.

  • Bill S

    and it most certainly isn’t an outlet to allow leftists to spout their POV. Frankly, I could care less what your viewpoint is, if it is in contradiction with the stated goal of this web site: to advance conservative/GOP causes. And I will not allow this site to be used as a place to voice it.

    So don’t bother.