A CIA officer speaks on Zubaydah

This is a follow-up to the destroyed video tape story I wrote about earlier. When a CIA officer publicly speaks, you know that no matter what they say, somebody, somewhere, is going to put a political spin on the story. This one is no exception.

We now know a little more now about Zubaydah, the subject of the destroyed tapes, because John Kiriakou, a retired CIA agent, recently granted an interview with ABC New's Brian Ross (full transcript here: part 1, part 2). This was a rather unique interview because, as far as I know, no CIA official ever admitted to actually witnessing a waterboarding or describing it as "torture". And maybe they still haven't. Because here's the problem - Mr. Kiriakou was not present during Zubaydah's interrogations (although he was present at his initial capture and questioning), and despite the sensational ABC News headline ("CIA Spy Calls Waterboarding Necessary But Torture"), he never actually calls it "torture". Here is his exact quote:

But like a lot of Americans, I think I-- I'm involved in this-- this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that water-boarding may be torture, versus the quality of information that we-- that we often get after using the water-boarding technique.

Andrew Sullivan, of course falls for it hook, line, and sinker, and shows that he didn't even bother to read the article or the interview. Then he goes on to quote Ron Suskind to supposedly bolster his argument, even though Kiriakou directly contradicts Suskind at every turn. For those that don't know, Ron Suskind is a journalist-turned-author who has written several books highly critical of the Bush administration's War on Terror, such as the One Percent Doctrine. However, he has no actual experience in the war, and uses anonymous sources to bolster many of his arguments. Nevertheless pundits like Sullivan and Kevin Drum eat this stuff up because simply because it confirms their own political beliefs. Dig a little and they might not like what they see. For example, Suskind:

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be....Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics...

That completely contradicts John Kiriakou's account from the interview transcript (and unlike Suskind, he was actually there):

JOHN:
One of the reasons why it was of such-- importance to us that night is the room where-- where he was when the raid began had a table in it. And on the table Abu Zubaydah and two other men were building a bomb. The soldering arm was still hot. And they had the plans for-- for a school on the table. So we knew that there were-- immediate threats that he could-- he could help us with.
BRIAN ROSS:
A school where?
JOHN:
In Lahore. In Lahore, Pakistan.

And a little later:

JOHN:
But what he was able to provide was information on the al Qaeda leadership. For example-- if bin Laden were to do X-- who would be the person to undertake such a-- such an operation? "Oh, logically that would be Mr. Y." And we were able to use that information to kind of get an idea of how al Qaeda operated, how it came about conceptualizing its operations, and-- and how it went about tasking different cells with carrying out operations.
BRIAN ROSS:
And in terms of the actual planned future attacks?
JOHN:
Yeah, we disrupted a lot of them.

Suskind also claimed that Zubaydah was making up information, sending us on wild goose chases:

They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

But that also totally contradicts Kiriakou:

BRIAN ROSS:
And people were valuing what he said?
JOHN:
They were.
BRIAN ROSS:
Was he ever caught in a lie?
JOHN:
No.
BRIAN ROSS:
An exaggeration?
JOHN:
No. And we-- we really ran down everything that he said. Obviously, there are other sources to-- to corroborate-- things. And this is one way that you're able to vet the people that you're speaking with. And to the best of my recollection, he never led us down the wrong path.

At least Steve Benen at Carpetbagger Report was astute enough to notice the discrepancy, but remarks: "At this point, I have no idea who’s right about this".

Yes, it must be hard to decide between a CIA officer who was actually there in 2002, vs. an ivory tower journalist with an axe to grind. I know these decisions are tough.

Finally, just so we know what we're up against, this quote from Zubaydah is particularly enlightening:

"A former colleague of mine asked him during the conversation one day, 'What would you do if we decided to let you go one day?' And he said, 'I would kill every American and Jew I could get my hands on...It's nothing personal. You're a nice guy. But this is who I am.'"

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed