Bullshit: FBI Witness Claims Zubaydah Didn't Need to be Waterboarded
— Ace

Wow. A lot of claims made about Zubaydah.

First, we were told he was, literally, "insane" and could not provide any intelligence, as he was just imaginin' shit.

At the same time, I think we oversold [Zubaydah's] value -- the administration did -- to the American public. That's indisputable. As well, what folks inside the CIA and FBI were realizing, even as the president and others inside the administration were emphasizing the profound malevolence and value strategically to the capture of Zubaydah, is that Zubaydah is psychologically imbalanced, he has multiple personalities. And he was not involved in various events that we thought he was involved in. During various bombings in the late '90s, he was not where we thought he would be. That's shown in the diaries, where he goes through long lists of quotidian, nonsensical details about various people and what they're doing, folks that he's moving around, getting plane tickets for and serving tea to, all in the voices of three different characters; page after page of his diary, filled, including on dates where, I'm trying to think, it was either the Khobar Towers or the Cole, where we thought he was involved in the bombing and he clearly wasn't.

Next up: Zubaydah's interrogation, the WaPo claims, was worthless because it didn't foil any Al Qaeda plots.

Well, except that whole "Second Wave" of jetliners to be crashed into LA skyscrapers.

Would you like to try again?

Okay, how about this version: Sure, he was telling us important stuff, but he was telling us it without waterboarding, so waterboarding was unnecessary.

But there are levels of cooperation. FBI agent Soufan was pleased with Zubaydah's cooperation. The CIA was not.

In Thailand, the new C.I.A. team concluded that under standard questioning Mr. Zubaydah was revealing only a small fraction of what he knew, and decided that more aggressive techniques were warranted.

At times, Mr. Zubaydah, still weak from his wounds, was stripped and placed in a cell without a bunk or blankets. He stood or lay on the bare floor, sometimes with air-conditioning adjusted so that, one official said, Mr. Zubaydah seemed to turn blue. At other times, the interrogators piped in deafening blasts of music by groups like the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Sometimes, the interrogator would use simpler techniques, entering his cell to ask him to confess.

“You know what I want,” the interrogator would say to him, according to one official’s account, departing leaving Mr. Zubaydah to brood over his answer.

F.B.I. agents on the scene angrily protested the more aggressive approach, arguing that persuasion rather than coercion had succeeded. But leaders of the C.I.A. interrogation team were convinced that tougher tactics were warranted and said that the methods had been authorized by senior lawyers at the White House.

Read Maguire's link. While Soufan says that waterboarding wasn't necessary, because "traditional" methods were working, in fact "traditional" methods had not been working at all -- Zubaydah was prompted to talk, even while Soufan was involved, by icy-cell treatment, ear-splitting music, etc. In other words, all the "torture" short of waterboarding had been needed to spur him to talk.

The left can take this as a claim that waterboarding itself wasn't needed, but they can't take it as a claim that enhanced interrogation techniques weren't needed -- those techniques were exactly the ones that got him chatting.

Furthermore, Soufan seems to think that Zubaydah would have given it all up without waterboarding, if we'd just been patient. Well, maybe. Difference of opinion, it seems. We do know that he spilled more with waterboarding. Whether he would have spilled without it -- who knows. Soufan can offer his speculation but that's all it is.

Arguing in the Alternative... I am really tired of the left's propensity to seize upon one inconsistent argument after another. They all have the same conclusion -- torture bad! -- but they change premises at the drop of a hat.

Posted by: Ace at 10:41 AM | Comments (68)
Post contains 676 words, total size 5 kb.

Sick Day/Open Blog
— Ace

Got a bug.

Thanks to everyone who sent donations. It really helps.

So much so that I'm taking a day off. I guess that's not really incentive-creating.

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (112)
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Rasmussen: Toomey Way Up Over Specter, 51-30
— Ace

Can we finally get rid of this nasty old bastard?

And he is a mean old bastard. A poll of senate aids, etc., named him the third meanest Senator, after Babs Mikulsky and Kay Bailey Hutchinson. He routinely tops the most-despised list among people who work with him.

Posted by: Ace at 09:48 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Minnesota Supreme Court to Hear Coleman's Appeal June 1
— Ace

Ghost of a chance:

ColemanÂ’s appeal brief must be submitted by April 30, with FrankenÂ’s brief due by May 11. ColemanÂ’s legal team can then file a reply brief, due by May 15.

In January, Coleman challenged recount results that gave Franken a 225-vote lead out of 2.9 million cast. The ensuing trial expanded FrankenÂ’s lead to 312 votes.

ColemanÂ’s appeal will be based on the same arguments his legal team made unsuccessfully during the seven-week election trial, though with a focus on what his attorneys say are constitutional violations made during the initial count and six-week recount.

Also, two of seven Minnesota's SC judges will recuse themselves from considering the appeal. Which was expected, but bad: These guys were considered pro-Coleman, for one reason or another, but, having served on the canvassing panel, they would be blocked from serving on the Supreme Court should the case ever come there. Which it has.

Posted by: Ace at 08:58 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

Meghan McCain Is Not, Strictly Speaking, Very Smart
— DrewM

Once again Ms. McCain has grabbed headlines as the new voice of the Republican Party by running down, wait for it, Republicans.

The big media take away quote from her appearance on The View yesterday was her mention of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney which concluded with "You had your 8 years, go away".

Well, here's what she actually said.

"It's very unprecedented for someone like Karl Rove or Dick Cheney to be criticizing the President. It's very unprecedented, former Vice President and obviously you know Karl Rove...You had your 8 years, go away"

Not just 'unprecedented' but she channeled her inner Demi Moore in a Few Good Men and raised the ante with "very unprecedented"

Let me see if I can go back into the musty history books and find a former Vice President and chief political adviser to a president who criticized the next administration....

Oh here's a pair. Al Gore and James Carville.

Ms. McCain spoke of her Columbia education during the show. Apparently they don't teach ancient American history (or what the word "unprecedented" means) at that fine institution.

Why bother going after this dim bulb? Because she's clearly digging the limelight and the only way she gets to stay in it is by knocking Republicans. Of course she does this while claiming to be one of them and only worried about the future of the party. Pointing out that Gore and Carville knocked Bush doesn't score you sweet network time, does it?

We really have to make it clear we don't need any more McCain mavericks. One has done enough damage to the party.

Oh and Ms. McCain? What political characteristic do Rove and Cheney have in common that your dad doesn't share? Rove and Cheney were part of winning two presidential elections. You can look it up.

More: BTW-Did you know Ms. McCain only became a Republican last year? Here's her blog entry on the subject. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 08:27 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

Al Gore, Climate Change Coward?
— DrewM

This guy says yep, Al Gore is chickenshit.

UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

...According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

It's easy to settle the science when you don't let the other side speak.

You'd think if Gore and the other Gaia worshipers were right and the anti-AGW crowd are nothing but flat earthers, they'd welcome the opportunity to make them look like idiots on such a big stage.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:25 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh Good, Obama Agrees To Release CIA Photos Of Detainee Treatment
— DrewM

Congratulations to the not anti-American, just pro-terrorist ACLU for their victory. They, others on the left and S&M fetishists everywhere are of course giddy over Obama's new commitment to "transparency".

Naturally all this transparency (which oddly enough still doesn't include the memos showing the results of the program. Funny that*) comes at a price.

Calling the ACLU push to release the photographs "prurient" and "reprehensible," Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, tells ABC News that the Obama administration should have taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

"They should have fought it all the way; if they lost, they lost," Lowenthal said. "There's nothing to be gained from it. There's no substantive reason why those photos have to be released."

Lowenthal said the president's moves in the last week have left many in the CIA dispirited, based on "the undercurrent I've been getting from colleagues still in the building, or colleagues who have left not that long ago."

"We ask these people to do extremely dangerous things, things they've been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong," Lowenthal says. "They don't believe they have that cover anymore." Releasing the photographs "will make it much worse," he said.

If, God forbid, there's an attack on US soil during Obama's term, I don't want to hear "sorry about that" from him, Sullivan, Greenwald/Ellers and the rest. I want them to man up and say, "this is an acceptable price to pay for not being mean to those misunderstood Islamists".

Choices have consequences. My fear is we are all going to pay for theirs.

*And for the breathless lefties, no I'm not saying the ends justify the means. What I am saying is that 'transparency' is bullshit when it's selective. It's also impossible to have a reasonable public debate when the full context of such visceral images is being withheld.

If you really want to have this debate, fine. Just don't pretend this is a real debate or that Obama is doing anything but playing politics with national security.

Reminder from "Lee" in the comments...

And yet showing footage of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center is somehow crude.

Did I mention the whole, not-anti American, just pro-terrorist thing? Yes, I believe I did.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:17 AM | Comments (149)
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

Barry on TV!
— Jack M.

One of my favorite political stories involves my favorite political Barry, Barry Goldwater. Who, by the way, was humble enough not to name his dog "Bg".

The story goes like this: During the 1964 Presidential campaign, GOP Presidential nominee Senator Barry Goldwater went on the record as being against the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

One day Senator Goldwater is on the trail and he meets up with a woman who lived in Northern Alabama, an area that was and remains within the TVA's coverage jurisdiction.

As all good candidates do, Senator Goldwater laid out his case and asked for the woman's vote. She told him no.

When he asked why she wouldn't vote for him, the woman relied "Because I heard you want to get rid of my TV."

Momentarily taken aback, Senator Goldwater wondered what he could have said that gave her that impression. Then it occurred to him...she had misheard his remarks condemning the TVA.

Seizing the opportunity to correct the record, Senator Goldwater corrected the woman. "I don't want to get rid of your TV! I want to get rid of the TVA!" he claimed.

The woman thought about this response for a moment and replied...

"All the same, I'm not taking any chances."

Why do I bring up this story from the 1964 campaign? Because it's the first thing I think about when I see stories like this: President Asks for Primetime Slot in May Sweeps.

It is no secret that this President has a particularly acute streak of narcissism. For someone who has not even accomplished enough to earn an honorary degree from Arizona State University, he sure seems to enjoy going on television to remind you of it.

I thought that this passage in the above article was interesting:

ThereÂ’s no word yet on whether the broadcast networks will agree to the White House request, though one network insider said itÂ’s all but a given they will.

Programmers have been peeved at President ObamaÂ’s numerous primetime appearances since taking office, because every unscheduled speech or press conference results in a loss of ad revenue.

Is this an early indication of Obama-fatigue? Apparently Obama is costing the nets money by "forcing" (not really, but which network will say "No"? None of them) them to carry programing that the television viewing market clearly isn't interested in. The ratings should be interesting, especially considering that there is no compelling reason to watch what appears to be little more than a "100 Days and I'm Teh Greatest!!1!!1!!1! Evah!!1!!!" pep-rally. Not exactly a matter of compelling public interest.

Truth be told, I don't feel too sorry for the networks. They pretty much brought this media-created empty-suit on themselves.

I do think about the woman in North Alabama, though. If she's still around, I wonder how upset she is becoming with Obama's regular pre-emption of her "stories."

Because among the lessons of the 1964 campaign is that you mess with people's TV's at your own expense.

Luckily for Conservatives, this Barry seems not to have learned this lesson. Yet.

Posted by: Jack M. at 06:01 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 518 words, total size 3 kb.

Roll Call of Absurdity
— Gabriel Malor

This is so good, I can't really steal any of it. Step one; go read it. Step two: weep.

And we haven't even made it out of the first hundred days yet. You'd think this would be the perfect time for the GOP to get its act together.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:31 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

If Baghdad Bob Wrote for "E&P"
— Slublog

The results would probably look something like this column - "They will surrender, it is they who will surrender!"

NEW YORK Enough already. Partial facts and misinformation about newspapers are distorting the view for everyone, including readers and advertisers.

Let's set the record straight: Newspapers still enjoy considerable readership and deliver strong results for advertisers. More Americans read printed newspapers than watch the Super Bowl. More Americans read printed newspapers than own dogs. Newspapers and their Web sites reach a larger audience than ever before.

The crisis facing newspapers is not an audience problem. It is a revenue problem.

Let's see...what do newspapers base their advertising rates on? What do potential advertisers look for when trying to figure out how to spend their money? What is the connection between revenue and audience? Yeah, that's a real stumper she's got there.

Barrett's true Baghdad Bob-ishness is revealed in her desperate comparisons. Number of daily newspapers? 1,422. Number of Super Bowls? One, once a year for five hours or so. A more relevant comparison would be number of newspaper readers versus...say...number of hits per day on the Drudge Report. Something tells me that comparison would not work as well for Barrett.

Not content to simply refuse one acknowledgment of reality, Barrett doubles down:

There is no shortage of other theories on why newspapers are hurting. Most come from those without direct responsibility for the financial health of a newspaper. Some popular explanations:

1.) Newspapers are too liberal and drive off readers as a result.
2.) Newspaper publishers are slow to embrace new technology.
3.) Newspapers are losing readers to the Internet.

As my father used to say, they donÂ’t know what they donÂ’t know. In reality, none of these theories is responsible for newspapers' woes.

In other words, no, newspapers aren't losing readers because of liberalism, technology issues or the internet! Why not? Shut up, that's why not. Let's examine each of those issues separately.

1.) Newspapers are too liberal and drive off readers as a result.

I'll let Vanderleun handle this one. Short answer? It's hard to make money in a highly competitive market when you alienate half your audience on a daily basis. Example? This headline, from my hometown paper.

2.) Newspaper publishers are slow to embrace new technology.

Part myth, part truth. Newspapers did jump onto the internet pretty quickly. The problem was that they simply dropped their printed content onto the internet, and then either put those stories behind irritating registration walls (I'm looking at you Washington Post) or tried to charge for it. Not exactly the best strategies when dealing with a medium known for providing content that's both free and accessible. The best example of a newspaper that understood the internet was the Wall St. Journal. They provided their content online, but also provided significant value-added features.

3.) Newspapers are losing readers to the Internet.

This one is undeniable. Of course print newspapers are losing readers to the internet. In an age when news is broken, analyzed and forgotten in the time it takes to post it in HTML or talk about it on cable, the idea of 'breaking' news on paper hours after it has been thoroughly dissected by the networks and the blogs is ridiculous. More often than not, the headline on the front page of most newspapers is always old news.

What's killing newspapers is pretty simple - they are a product of the industrial age. Every day, a newspaper takes a huge staff, enormous machines and a lot of money to produce. I think the future of newspapers is local. By the time our local paper runs national news headlines, the news in question has already been reported by cable news and digested, analyzed and in some cases deconstructed by blogs and online news outlets. Local news, however, has not.

The newspapers that understand that reality will survive. Those that do not, will not.

Cross-posted at the Greenroom.

Posted by: Slublog at 04:15 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 664 words, total size 5 kb.