Paging Anyone That Interviewed Mark Thiessen

I found this at the wonderfully insightful blog Dispatches From The Culture War and wanted to pass it along with a bit of commentary from myself, as Ed Brayton's take on the story is brief, yet poignant.

My gut reaction on reading Marc Thiessen's new book, Courting Disaster, was: "Why is a speechwriter who's never served in the military or intelligence community acting as an expert on interrogation and national security?" Certainly, everyone is entitled to a voice in the debate over the lawfulness and efficacy of President Bush's abusive interrogation program, regardless of qualifications. But if you're not an expert on a subject, shouldn't you interview experts before expressing an opinion? Instead, Thiessen relies solely on the opinions of the CIA interrogators who used torture and abuse and are thus most vulnerable to prosecution for war crimes. That makes his book less a serious discussion of interrogation policy than a literary defense of war criminals. Nowhere in this book will you find the opinions of experienced military interrogators who successfully interrogated Islamic extremists. Not once does he cite Army Doctrine—which warns of the negative consequences of torture and abuse. Courting Disaster is nothing more than the defense's opening statement in a war crimes trial.

This reminds of statements made about how Interpol was going to be given carde blance within the US to arrest anyone they wanted, even that storyline was so full of plot holes that even the most remedial of researchers could have figured the real story out.

And I'm kind of kicking myself for not looking at this book, this story, this narrative, the way that "Matthew Alexander" ( a pen name ) did. But, such is the nature of an insider - they see things differently than anyone and can prove that when necessary.

This begs the question - why do people listen to those that have no first-hand knowledge of a variety of subjects? Why do people listen to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh when they talk about the economy when they aren't economists? Why do people listen to Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey talk about national security issues when they aren't members of the intel community?

Naturally, the response from conservatives would be that liberals/progressives listen to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on economic and intel issues when they discuss them on their shows. But the reality is that both Olbermann and Maddow have consistently had members of the intel community and economic minds on their program to discuss the issues at hand. Who does Hannity have on? Dick Morris? Who does Limbaugh have on? Well, no one.

The point is, know your source, rely on hard data, cast aside talking-points, and focus on the reality of the subject you are trying to research.

O'Donnell's Had Enough

And rightfully so.

Mark Thiessen has tried to pull this same crap about how torture of terrorists prevented the Library Tower bombing, though that has been debunked multiple times, and Lawrence reacts the way one would expect him to.



While conservatives are is already gleefully portraying this as a completely "unhinged" and "unprofessional" rant on O'Donnell's part, one has to wonder why this didn't come sooner.

The very smug demeanor of Thiessen, who is quite comfortable with his lie, shows just how well conservatives have brainwashed themselves. They actually believe the inane drivel that seeps from their very pores.

The one part I don't quite get is Scarborough kicking everyone off the set after commercial so he can interview Thiessen. I didn't see this live, but it's a fair assumption that Joe played patty-cake with this clown and let him peddle his fact-free screed with no challenges what-so-ever.

Liberals and Progressives are fed up with people like Mark Thiessen, and there's nothing wrong with being passionate about your standpoint.

The Malpractice Of Conservative Moral Authority

When conservatives write a book, no matter the subject, rest assured that they are going to attempt to re-write clearly defined segments of American history ( even some of it’s most recent aspects ) in order to prove their point – flaccid though it may be.

Case in point , Mark Theissen attempts to bully Chritiane Amanpour while denying that torture ever existed but then ultimately claiming that it saved American lives.



The “which attack would you have preferred succeeded” meme has been used multiple times by conservatives as a misdirection tool. It’s a clear signifier that conservatives are ultimately willing to use the spectre of torture to validate their own misgivings and moral failures.

It’s not a question that combating terrorism is difficult, but no one party can claim that they hold sway as the dominant force of success. After all, Theissen’s obtuse assurance that torture ( waterboarding, “advanced interrogation” ) offered actionable intel to prevent attacks has been proven false time and again.

In essence, Mark Theissen's thesis in the book is nothing more than an epic poem designed to warm the hearts of torture apologists within the conservative movement.

I am curious, thought, how Theissen would respond to recent disclosures that prisoners at Guantanamo were murdered.