« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Zubaydah, Waterboarded Multiple Times, Was Pressured To Reveal Saddam-Qaeda Ties
Here's another possible piece of evidence that the Bush torture program was used to bolster the political case for the Iraq war.
That 2004 intelligence committee report on Iraq intel that we just wrote about also contains a short section, on page 324, on the information provided by Abu Zubaydah:
The CIA provided four reports detailing the debriefings of Abu Zubaydah, a captured senior coordinator for Al Qaida responsible for training and recruiting. Abu Zubaydah said he was not aware of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaida. He also said, however, that any relationship would be highly compartmented and went on to name al Qaida members who he thought had good contacts with Iraqis. For instance, Abu Zubaydah indicated that he had heard that an important al Qaeda associate, Abu Mus'ab al -Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence ... REDACTED ... During the debrefings, Abu Zubaydah offered his opinion that it would be extremely unlikely for Bin Laden to have agreed to ally with Iraq, due to his desire to keep organization on track with its mission and maintain its operational independence.
Those details have been reported before, of course. But reading this excerpt makes clear that Zubaydah was strongly pressured by his captors to provide information that would show a link between Saddam and al Qaeda.
And of course, Zubaydah was famously waterboarded multiple times during the course of his interrogation, as the recently released OLC memos revealed.
Could those two things, by chance, have been related?

















"makes clear that Zubaydah was strongly pressured by his captors "
No it doesn't. Let's have some integrity at TPM, please.
"Could those two things, by chance, have been related? "
They could more likely be unrelated, since the tone of the report suggest the info came during the pre-waterboarding phase when AZ was cooperative.
And what AZ is alleged to have said doesn't bolster a political case for war, it bolsters a FACTUAL case for an Iraq-AQ connection. It doesn't say how significant that connection was. The connection could have been almost nothing to something serious.
Really, the articles recently at TPM have gone way downhill.
May 15, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, eds, there are NO FACTUAL connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq. AZ said what was widely believed at the time, both in the Muslim world, and the rest of us who knew something about that world.
Let me refresh your memory: OBL is a religious fundamentalist, Saddam was a secular dictator. They had no connection, commonality or reason to collaborate, and the evidence and debunking gathered since then confirms this point of view.
May 16, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouting your ignorant opinions doesn't make them persuasive, Dave.
"And what AZ is alleged to have said doesn't bolster a political case for war, it bolsters a FACTUAL case for an Iraq-AQ connection."
What I said is true. AZ's opinion as you quoted is both just an opinion and is limited since you didn't quote the rest of the relevant context.
"Abu Zubaydah said he was not aware of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaida. He also said, however, that any relationship would be highly compartmented and went on to name al Qaida members who he thought had good contacts with Iraqis."
'compartmented' likely should be 'compartmentalized', and as you see AZ names names.
This doesn't mean that the connection was significant or material, and it doesn't justify torture.
Please watch your own prejudices, Dave.
May 16, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eds, if actually offered any support for your claim of a "FACTUAL" Iraq-AlQ, perhaps something not involving torture, you might look less the fool. Might.
May 17, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I actually wrote, not what you may have imagined:
"it bolsters a FACTUAL case for an Iraq-AQ connection"
When you choose to believe only some things AZ is reported to have said, the burden is on you to justify your selective attention. So either you have bad reading ability or you firmly believe that everything AZ said was false, even when he was cooperating freely with the FBI guy, in which case the FBI guy is a fool or a plant.
May 17, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this turns out to be true -- if Cheney used torture to try to gin up support for the Iraq War -- then he will go to prison. And rightfully so.
May 16, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't go to prison for outing a CIA agent out of revenge for her husband exposing Bush regime lies about yellow-cake. Cheney is going to his mansion on the Chesapeake Bay once he has finished his current mischief.
May 16, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is significantly different, and given the buzz about the Plame case I'm pretty sure Cheney is at least in hot water here where in that case it was only lukewarm.
I think Cheney will pass on before he's convicted, assuming this looks likely to go to trial. Suicide, "suicide", or natural causes are the most likely.
May 16, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree he'll die before he would even get close to a courtroom, but do you honestly believe that he and the others will actually be accused? I know the will is out there, but not where it needs to be.
May 16, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"actually accused"? You mean formally indicted? I'm agnostic on that one, as I thought I said clearly in the comment. But I can't figure out what else you might mean. I agree that the "indict Cheney" movement is limited and did not grow (so far) to move politics very far in that direction.
May 17, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Lord, eds--first you fall all over yourself calling for a level of "objectivity" such that a person can hardly draw a conclusion, and then you turn around and imply that Cheney might be "suicided."
Careful with that there fountain pen, son--I think it jest jumped the fence and did its business in the back forty of idle speculation.
May 17, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that supposed to be encouragement?
May 17, 2009 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
:^)
May 18, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but seriously I do often call for not jumping to conclusions about factual matters ("hardly draw a [fallacious] conclusion), while I am not against speculation about future or fictional matters (overtly guessing/suggesting future outcomes)!
"Cheney is guilty" is something I'd object to at this point if offered factually/logically as opposed to merely sentimentally. "Cheney will be found guilty" is arguable as a future-fact if now-fiction possibility.
May 18, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink