From the Washington Post:

By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 29, 2009; Page A01
When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.

...

Abu Zubaida quickly told U.S. interrogators of Mohammed and of others he knew to be in al-Qaeda, and he revealed the plans of the low-level operatives who fled Afghanistan with him. Some were intent on returning to target American forces with bombs; others wanted to strike on American soil again, according to military documents and law enforcement sources.

Such intelligence was significant but not blockbuster material. Frustrated, the Bush administration ratcheted up the pressure -- for the first time approving the use of increasingly harsh interrogations, including waterboarding.

...

The application of techniques such as waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime -- prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al-Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction.

Abu Zubaida's revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.

"We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

According to your post, many known experts were consulted.  I am impressed with the research involved...I mean look at their credentials..... "We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms,"one former intelligence official said.  according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.   Amazingly they actually cited their source in the rebuttal....   Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

It further amazes me that people like you would prefer to believe those "unnamed" sources over a REAL LIVE individual with a name...



~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb

Given Dick Cheney's long documented history of lying, I'm amazed anyone could take his word for anything.

No proof of Dickie's statement.  You just have to take him at his word----NOT!

Given Dick Cheney's long documented history of lying, I'm amazed anyone could take his word for anything.

  Please...  I'm not even going to ask for it, it would be pointless...

gus.

 

Please... I'm not even going to ask for it, it would be pointless...

Pointless? Because you're not going to believe any evidence, however strong?

Here's that radical leftist Dick Armey on how Cheney lied to him:

According to Gellman (and to paraphrase from the Post story on his finding), in the run-up to the war in Iraq, the White House was worried about the stance of Republican Majority Leader Richard Armey of Texas, who had deep concerns about going to war with Saddam Hussein. According to the Post, Armey met with Cheney for a highly classified, one-on-on briefing, in Room H-208, Cheney's luxurious hideaway office on the House side of the Capitol.

During this meeting, the Post reports, Cheney turned Armey around on the war issue. Cheney did so by telling the House Majority Leader that he was giving him information that the Administration could not tell the public -- namely (according to Armey), that Iraq had the "'ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear,' which had been 'substantially refined since the first Gulf War,' and would soon result in 'packages that could be moved even by ground personnel.' In addition, Cheney linked that threat to Saddam's alleged personal ties to al Qaeda, explaining that 'we now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as al Qaeda.'"

The Post story continues, "Armey has asked: "Did Dick Cheney ... purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" His answer: "I seriously feel that may be the case...Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening."

In short, it was this lie that sealed the nation's fate, and sent us to war in Iraq. By lying to such an influential figure in Congress, Cheney not only may have changed the course of history, but also corrupted the separation of powers with their inherent checks and balances.

I could go on with example after example, but what would be the point?

yea, sure....according to far left wing loons dead set on finding a way to get President Bush....

And do any of you dopes believe any of the information was supposed to be published in the newspaper for everyones reading.....

Dopes, total dopes.....

Yeah, sure, webby ...

Dick Armey: "far left wing loon"

John Dean: "far left wing loon"

In short, it was this lie that sealed the nation's fate, and sent us to war in Iraq. By lying to such an influential figure in Congress, Cheney not only may have changed the course of history, but also corrupted the separation of powers with their inherent checks and balances.

   The first casualty of the fog of zealotry is whatever ability to reason the zealot may, or may not have possessed.  There's nothing partisan about that fact, the anti-Clinton zealots displayed exactly the same thing.  Why on earth do you think I said it was pointless?  Your "proof" serves my point splendidly.

gus.

 

 

I can't quite divine what your argument is, Gus .... are you saying that Dick Armey is a zealot who's mind has been fogged and therefore he mis-heard Cheney? Or are you saying he's lying when he reports what Cheney told him? Or are you claiming that what Cheney told him wasn't a lie?

It has to be one of those, or otherwise my example is a clear example of Cheney lying in a crucial circumstance.

It has to be one of those, or otherwise my example is a clear example of Cheney lying in a crucial circumstance.

   Exactly.  Point made yet again...

gus,

 

Exactly. Point made yet again...

Spell it out, Gus. How am I making your point? If I've missed an alternative, tell us what it is.

Spell it out, Gus. How am I making your point? If I've missed an alternative, tell us what it is.

  The simple fact that you make this statement makes my point.  You won't see it, I don't expect you to see it.  *That's* my point.

"It has to be one of those, or otherwise my example is a clear example of Cheney lying in a crucial circumstance."

  "Lying"?  Just as simple as that?  No nuance?  No shades of gray?  No context?  No circumstance?  "Crucial"?  How crucial?  Because Armey says so?  And all of this in the high-intensity crucible of Presidential politics and policy-making?  Reading Cheney's mind in the process? so easy, because he has been reduced to a simple cartoon character with horns and a tail?  It's stupid, Jan.  It's simplistic, it's juvenile, and it's stupid.  But it fits nicely on a banner, just in case taking to the streets becomes "crucial".

gus.

 

 

"Lying"? Just as simple as that? No nuance? No shades of gray? No context? No circumstance?

Yes. Read the National Intelligence Estimate that CFTR so proudly cites all the time (whilst ignoring the extensive dissenting opinions in the appendices.) There is NO suggestion that we ever had any intelligence supporting these extravagant claims of what Iraq's capabilities were. Miniaturization of nuclear devices? Cheney made that up wholesale.


"Crucial"? How crucial? Because Armey says so? And all of this in the high-intensity crucible of Presidential politics and policy-making?

Yes. Because Armey says so (if common sense isn't enough for you.) Had he opposed the Iraq war, there's no way in Hell that Bush would have gotten his majority. And if we hadn't gone into Iraq, we could have dedicated the force really needed in Afghanistan.


Reading Cheney's mind in the process? so easy, because he has been reduced to a simple cartoon character with horns and a tail? It's stupid, Jan. It's simplistic, it's juvenile, and it's stupid. But it fits nicely on a banner, just in case taking to the streets becomes "crucial".

No, Gus. What's stupid is pretending that all the shit Bush/Cheney did wrong is a figment of the liberal imagination.