FuzzNJ wrote:Um, no. What we've got here is unnamed sources saying that this is how the information came about, apparently former and current government people. Now on this thread I have been told that named sources, under oath were lying, because it didn't fit the story line. Yet you are willing to accept unnamed sources that may be just trying to justify a policy that they supported all along.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you are not using logic in your reasoning.
BAM!!!Finally, in May 2005, al-Libi was captured. Under CIA interrogation, al-Libi admitted that when he was promoted to succeed Mohammed, he received the word through a courier. But he made up a name for the courier and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti, a denial that was so adamant and unbelievable that the CIA took it as confirmation that he and Mohammed were protecting the courier. It only reinforced the idea that al-Kuwaiti was very important to al-Qaida.
If they could find the man known as al-Kuwaiti, they'd find bin Laden.
The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA's so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.
"We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day," said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.
Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden_hunt_for_bin_laden
Now...STFU!!! GUess there's 4 now!!!!
