Mr. Thiessen accuses Jane Mayer of asserting that Bush era interrogations yielded no appreciable intelligence benefit, even though she doesn’t assert that rather, she very clearly reports, accurately, that some of Bush’s critics assert that position, never asserting it herself.
Subsequently, he purports to defend his own position about enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding, by selectively quoting people who turn out to argue that either enhanced interrogation generally, or waterboarding in particular, shouldn’t be used and do more harm than good. That he neglects to mention their words when they are contrary to his own arguments is telling.
And we’re only three short paragraphs into Mr. Thiessen’s article.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.