Straw Men and a Weak President

In the debate this week on protecting our national security, Barack Obama said that "I categorically reject the assertion that these [enhanced interrogation techniques] are the most effective means of interrogation."

Sounds like the President is taking a strong stand? Think again.

The problem is that Obama is creating a "straw man" that is easy to knock down: the debate over enhanced interrogation like waterboarding is not that it is the "most effective means of interrogation". No one is arguing that. Instead, the issue is: are these techniques sometimes helpful in getting intelligence from the most hardened terrorists, after other techniques failed?

Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, who organized 9/11 and boasted that he beheaded Daniel Pearl, and two other terrorists were waterboarded after other methods repeatedly failed. Out of the thousands captured, three terrorists were subject to enhanced interrogation.

And was it effective?

Reports indicate that as of 2006, half of the actionable intelligence on terrorism came from these techniques.

George Tenet, the CIA director for Bill Clinton and George Bush, said that: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us." That's a stunning level of effectiveness, when you realize that the National Security Agency spends over $30 billion a year monitoring communications around the world, and the FBI and CIA have thousands of personnel seeking such information.

Admiral Blair, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, said that: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods [enhanced interrogation] were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Quaeda organization that was attacking this country." Blair wrote this - but disturbingly it was deleted from the version publicly released by the Obama administration.

Here is a hint to being able to detect a weak argument: when you resort to personal denunciations, or the creation of false "straw men", to make your case - the case you are making is a bad one.

Facts and logic ought to win an argument, not lies, evasions, and distortions. Obama is not only wrong on the policy, but he can't even the discuss the issue in an honest manner.