Torture memos

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

We know from the memos that the CIA Inspector General found there was no conclusive proof that harsh interrogation techniques (torture) helped prevent any "specific imminent attacks"...despite numerous assertions by Bush/Cheney/Rice that torture led directly to preventing such attacks.

We also know that the CIA director later ordered an investigation of the CIA IG - a highly unusual and unprecedented action.

And the White House was involved in ordering the investigation? That's such a long reach, even the Times doesn't draw that conclusion.

We know from the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Report that Cheney/Rumsfeld pressured interrogators to use torture to find a (non-existent) connection between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein

In a search of all 266 pages of the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Report PDF part 1 PDF part 2, the word "Iraq" does not appear.

The evidence in that McClatchy story comes from a single anonymous individual. And the story buries the note that

Others in the interrogation operation "agreed there was pressure to produce intelligence, but did not recall pressure to identify links between Iraq and al Qaida," the report said.

That's the newspaper game for you: the scary bit goes in the lede, the lack of evidence for the scary bit goes after the jump.

We know that Bush's DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility has issued a report (to be made public in the next few weeks) that reportedly says the DoJ attorneys who wrote the torture memos may have deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted.

If the Bush DoJ writes opinions with its left hand, and investigates itself for those opinions with the right hand, then if the left hand is politicization, the right hand is utter lack of it.

Now, to think in a straight line, your original conclusion is the Bush administration frequently exaggerated the terrorist threat level for political purposes. The examples you've provided do not address that conclusion, not even circumstantially, so you're back to square one.