« Wanted: GOP Leader -- Basic Grasp of Current Issues Preferred |
Blog Home Page
| Harman Tape Irony (Update: Prosectors reported considering dropping AIPAC case) »
April 21, 2009
Did 'enhanced interrogation' save Los Angeles?
If you live in L.A. and didn't die in a terrorist attack, you may owe it to the CIA's use of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that are currently under fire from the Obama administration and the left-wing fringe.
In a compelling Op-Ed in Tuesday's Washington Post, Marc A. Thiessen disproves Barack Obama's hollow claim that such techniques "did not make us safer." Rather than following the MSM lead and merely parroting the Obamatons' talking points after the release of previously-classified memos this week, Thiessen actually examined the documents.
Thiessen concludes that Obama's contention is "patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media."
Thiessen specifically refers to a May, 2005 memo regarding two top al Qaeda operatives, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah:
But once the enhanced techniques were used, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."
In other words, the techniques worked when previous interrogation methods had failed.
Indeed, the memos point out that the only way to get information from Qaeda operatives may be through the use of such enhanced methods:
The CIA documents reveal specifically that the enhanced techniques:
Further, the memo states that KSM might never have been captured, and the information he revealed never learned, without enhanced interrogation techniques used against Zubaydah.
The 'Second Wave' attack planned by KSM, thwarted by the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, would have hijacked a jetliner and crashed it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the tallest building on the West Coast. Thiessen points out, "without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York."
But the impact would have been far worse than the physical devastation to L.A and the resultant thousands of casualties. The nation was reeling after 9/11, deadly anthrax was being delivered through the mail, the economy was in trouble. A follow-up attack on the West Coast would have meant that, potentially, no one was safe. The effect would have been devastating.
Even Obama's hand-picked CIA Director, has admitted that he might consent to enhanced interrogation techniques under a "ticking time bomb" scenario. And that is exactly the scenario in which the techniques were used during the Bush administration.
Perhaps the next time that Obama takes his Tele-prompter to L.A. to discuss "Overseas Contingency Operations," he should be grateful that they were.
William Tate is an award-winning journalist and author