20-12-2014, 06:43 PM
Magda Hassan Wrote:It seems entirely possiblethough, again, one can only speculatethat the C.I.A. overcompensated for its pre-9/11 intelligence failures by employing overly harsh measures later. Once they'd made a choice that America had never officially made beforeof sanctioning tortureit seems possible that they felt they had to defend its efficacy, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. If so, this would be worth learning. But without names, or even pseudonyms, it is almost impossible to piece together the puzzle, or hold anyone in the American government accountable. Evidently, that is exactly what the C.I.A. was fighting for during its eight-month-long redaction process, behind all those closed doors.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...en-torture
You see this is the problem with mainstream criticisms of 9-11. While the article is on point about what CIA did it makes the critical mistake of betraying what its information leads to by calling these actions "failures". As Peter repeatedly points out - make no mistake these were not at all failures but were much the 'successes' of a covert cabal that intended to attack America with these false flag patsies all under the control and guidance, as pointed out in the article, of CIA. A very important distinction and NBC should drop the bullshit of not going all the way in their conclusions.