Horrible RINO John McCain Defends Obama, Smears Former CIA Director Mukasey, Misleads on Panetta’s Comments & Makes America Less Safe

It is now well documented that enhanced interrogation techniques provided the information that led the US to Osama Bin Laden. But, many diehard liberals insist that not only are enhanced interrogation methods torture, but they don’t work.

Today John McCain smeared former CIA Director Mukasey and played word games Leon Panetta on enhanced interrogation techniques to defend his flawed position.
Just last week CIA Director Panetta confirmed that waterboarding gleaned information that led us to Bin Laden.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Awful RINO John McCain put America at a greater risk for another massive terrorist attack by misrepresenting Panetta’s previous statements on waterboarding and by misrepresenting the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques.
McCain wrote this editorial for the The Washington Post:

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that “the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.” That is false.

I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.

In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear — true or false — if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading.

Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops, who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and al-Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more conventional enemies, if not in this war then in the next.

Though it took a decade to find bin Laden, there is one consolation for his long evasion of justice: He lived long enough to witness what some are calling the Arab Spring, the complete repudiation of his violent ideology.

As we debate how the United States can best influence the course of the Arab Spring, can’t we all agree that the most obvious thing we can do is stand as an example of a nation that holds an individual’s human rights as superior to the will of the majority or the wishes of government? Individuals might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but even then, as recognized in our Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others.

All of these arguments have the force of right, but they are beside the most important point. Ultimately, this is more than a utilitarian debate. This is a moral debate. It is about who we are.

I don’t mourn the loss of any terrorist’s life. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we confuse or encourage those who fight this war for us to forget that best sense of ourselves. Through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger and better than those who would destroy us.

What a horrible piece of trash.

Here’s a bit of information for McCain and the libs.
The “Arab spring” has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. It is not a repudiation of Al-Qaeda. In fact it looks like the Islamic extremists have already made great gains after the fall of the pro-Western regimes. It’s not like it’s a secret.

It looks like McCain has fallen back on his old ways and is trying to get the state-run media to love him again.

You Might Like