More Lies On Bush/Cheney Torture

As it turns out, the newly released torture memos and a CIA Inspector General report from 2005 have revealed even further troubled aspects of the Bush administration's war crimes.

Before we get to the ugly stuff, the OIG report confirms what every credible person has already concluded (but which Darth Cheney continues to lie about):

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques [i.e., torture] helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

That undercuts assertions by former vice president Dick Cheney and other former Bush administration officials that the use of [torture] was justified because it headed off terrorist attacks.

President Bush told a September 2006 news conference that one plot, to attack a Los Angeles office tower, was "derailed" in early 2002 — before [torture] was approved, contrary to those who claim that waterboarding revealed it.

Last December, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine that he didn't believe that intelligence gleaned from [torture] had disrupted any attacks on America.

OK-- now comes the more damaging stuff. The OIG report also reveals that administration officials were informed that torture was far more dangerous than originally claimed by the Bushies:

Helgerson also concluded that waterboarding was riskier than officials claimed and reported that the CIA's Office of Medical Services thought that the risk to the health of some prisoners outweighed any potential intelligence benefit.

Contrary to Bush administration's insistence that waterboarding carried few risks and that medical concerns were a priority, the CIA didn't initially seek the help of medical professionals in setting up or carrying out the procedure. According to Bradbury:

OMS (the CIA's Office of Medical Services) was neither consulted nor involved in the initial analysis of the risk and benefits of (enhanced interrogation techniques).

And finally, the whole torture scam is beginning to take on the smell of outright incompetence (again from the Bradbury memo):

According to the IG Report, the CIA . . . could not always distinguish detainees who had information (but were successfully resisting interrogation) from those who did not actually have information. On at least one occasion, this may have resulted in what might be deemed in retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques.

This is isn't about political retribution or getting even. Bush and his cronies are trying to establish a precedent that a U.S. president can authorize war crimes, and we need to prove to the world that he was wrong and ensure that it will never happen again.