New York Times Brushes Aside Inconvenient Osama Fact: Intelligence Originated at Gitmo
Tuesday’s lead New York Times editorial thumped President Obama on the back for the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden, calling the president “a strong and measured leader.” In contrast, the two mentions of President Bush, who pursued Bin Laden aggressively, were both negative. The editors also tried to shoo away the pesky fact that the tip that led to Osama bin Laden’s killing came from a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, the island prison the paper has worked so hard to close down over the years, contradicting its own reporting in the process.
Leadership matters enormously, and President Obama has shown that he is a strong and measured leader. His declaration on Sunday night that “justice has been done” was devoid of triumphalism. His vow that the country will “remain vigilant at home and abroad” was an important reminder that the danger has not passed. His affirmation that the “United States is not and never will be at war with Islam” sent an essential message to the Muslim world, where hopes for democracy are rising but old hatreds, and leaders who exploit them, are still powerful.
Mr. Obama rightly affirmed that this country will be “relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies” — but “true to the values that make us who we are.” Maintaining that balance is never easy, and this administration has strayed, but not as often or as damagingly as the Bush team did. Much will be made of the fact that the original tip came from detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. There is no evidence that good intelligence like this was the result of secret detentions or abuse and torture. Everything suggests the opposite.
Not “much” has necessarily been made in the Times, however. A nytimes.com search suggests the detail has so far only appeared once in a news story, either in print or online. The paper has also failed to note the irony of Obama having campaigned on a program of shutting the prison down.
And the paper's actual reporting contradicts the paper's liberal assumption that "secret detentions" failed to gather intelligence. Tuesday’s lead story twice noted that the intelligence work that led to bin Laden’s assassination included “the interrogation of C.I.A. detainees in secret prisons in Eastern Europe” -- prisons which liberals and Times reporters had previously deplored as ineffective, possibly illegal, and black marks on America's reputation.
The Times's editors then called for Obama to cut a deal with the Taliban:
Bin Laden’s death should be a warning to Taliban leaders and fighters that the United States is not giving up. The Obama administration should capitalize on that message of strength and seriously explore whether there is a political deal to be cut with the Taliban: one that doesn’t send Afghan women and girls back to the Dark Ages or reopen the country to Al Qaeda. But also one that helps bring a decade of American fighting closer to an end.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Senator Feinstein says no
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 6:51pm.
Senator Feinstein says no "enhanced interrogation" techniques used.
But she doesn't know how they got the info.
I guess they must have used this technique!
This surprises you?
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 6:52pm.
After all, Obama said he "didn't have all the facts, but basically the cops acted stupidly".
It's the democrat M.O.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
"everything shows the opposite"
Submitted by michiganruth on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:58pm.
about enhanced interrogation working? yeah, everything except the facts!
when the facts are inconvenient, the NYT just pretends they don't exist. and sadly, a lot of people buy into that BS.
I don't believe we should be torturing people either. but I don't think waterboarding is torture. anything that a journalist (C. Hitchens) will do to write a Vanity Fair story about should not be considered torture. anything we do TO OUR OWN TROOPS to prepare them for battle should not be considered torture.
Obama should get full credit for carrying off this plan. it went perfectly, and it took a lot of guts to call the play. but he wouldn't have been able to do it without the intel structure that Bush put in place. (it's also highly ironic that if Senator Obama had had his way, that intel structure wouldn't exist.)
"Winning"
Submitted by Injest on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:52pm.
"Much will be made of the fact that the original tip came from detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. There is no evidence that good intelligence like this was the result of secret detentions or abuse and torture. Everything suggests the opposite."
The "suggests the opposite" claim is based on a statement that the info KSM gave up came after
the enhanced interrogation techniques in govspeak.
Example from another site.
"This is patently false. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did not give up the information during TORTURE (enhanced interrogation techniques in govspeak), but rather during a normal interrogation months later."
So your saying he gave up the info AFTER being broken by (enhanced interrogation techniques in govspeak).
Question if he hadn't already been broken by (enhanced interrogation techniques in govspeak) would he have gave this info up?
Do you think he was sitting in his cell one day and said "hey know what, I know who's on the inside with OBL!"
After he was broken by enhanced interrogation techniques he became our squealing little b!tch.
BTW do you know what the last word OBL said?
"Winning"
IDEOLOGY
Submitted by LaVallette on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:31am.
The opinion of someone with his optimistic head in the sand:
"there is a political deal to be cut with the Taliban: one that doesn’t send Afghan women and girls back to the Dark Ages ...."
Its their ideology and in the foundational documents of that ideology the Koran/Hadiths/Sunna and the Sharia Law they want to impose on that country. Its like seeking to cut a deal with Communism and hope they will give up their central state control of the economy and social planning, the National Socialists without their antisemitism, the Demoncrats without their sacrament of abortion.