« Scott Brown Wins in Massachusetts! | Main | Haiti Briefing - 19 January 2010 - Military Relief Efforts Under Way »
January 21, 2010
Marc Thiessen v Christiane Amanpour and Phillippe Sands on CNN
Three days ago I excerpted Marc Thiessen article on National Review in which he summarized part of his new book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack. As expected, the post generated a spirited debate among commenters. A speechwriter for President George W. Bush, to prepare for writing them Thiessen was allowed to speak with two of our top CIA agents who actually conducted interrogations and debriefings (two separate activities) of captured terrorists. Obviously he didn't put the classified information they told him in the speeches, it was rather for background information so he would have an understanding of what we were really doing as opposed to what critics said we were doing.
Unsurprisingly, leftist critics of Bush are aghast that he would dare to write a book defending his administration. Christiane Amanpour had him on her show, and she and Phillippe Sands attacked his positions.
I think that Thiessen made Amanpour look like foolish because she clearly didn't know what she was talking about, and gets the better of Sands on the facts. Both Amanpour and Sands are determined that terrorists should have the protection of the Geneva conventions, which they either do not understand or are misrepresenting (Amanpour probably misunderstands, Sands is probably misrepresenting). See my posts here and here for information on the conventions.
But enough of my opinion. Watch the interview yourself and decide who's right (h/t Powerline)
Part two is below the fold
Posted by Tom at January 21, 2010 8:30 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1516
Comments
re: Marc A.Thiessen: I continue to be amazed that everyone one Iive read quotes all terrorist attacks on the US or our military from Marine Barricks to Twin Towers 91 and US Cole and draw a blank when it comes to Murrah Bldg in Oaklahoma in 95, like it was not a terror attack from Middle East. Jayna Davis TV reporter in Oak.city in her book (google: The Third Terrorist)reveals that she won in court when Judge confirmed that the "third Terrorist" was an Iraqi Republican guard member who was the third terrorist in Van and fled moments before it blew up. This fact and other evidence confirmed that Saddam Hussein was involved in that attack. This provides PLENTY of reason for our invasion of Iraq, let alone other reasons. How come still NOBODY acknowledges it? (It started with Clinton). 91 yr old WWII vet.
Posted by: culver wold at February 14, 2010 7:50 PM
