The Zubaydah Lie

Remember Abu Zubaydah? When he was captured in 2002 we were told he was  al-Qaida's logistics chief.  Well, take a look at this Wash Post review of Ron Suskind's new book:

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be. CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries "in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3" -- a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail "what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said." Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality."

Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States." And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques.....

In interviews with intelligence officers, Suskind often finds them baffled by White House statements. "Why the hell did the President have to put us in a box like this?" one top CIA official asked about the overblown public portrait of Abu Zubaydah. But Suskind sees a deliberate management choice: Bush ensnared his director of central intelligence at the time, George J. Tenet, and many others in a new kind of war in which action and evidence were consciously divorced....

"I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out.

I doubt Bush used exactly those words. But I don't particularly doubt the thrust of the story. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Our president is insecure and immature, traits that now characterize a whole administration.

Comments

[Jeff]

I'm glad you're at least open to the possibility that maybe this story didn't play out as Suskind reports. Here a few facts for you to consider while asessing this story

Jordan sentenced Zubaydah to death, because they believed he played a role in the millenium bombings.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5384560

This doesn't mean that he did, but we have to ask why Jordan believes otherwise

2) The 9/11 commission report says that Zubaydah was far more involved than Suskind reports.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch6.htm

Again, doesn't prove anything. There are obvious flaws to the commission, but it's something to take into account

3) And I think most importantly, a terrorist we captured in 2001 said that Abu Zubaydah was in charge of recruiting, which is far more than just "minor logistics"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/30/attack/main505014.shtml

Ahmed Ressam, convicted April 2001 of smuggling, terrorist conspiracy and other charges in the Los Angeles millennium plot, described Abu Zubaydah's role as a recruiter during court testimony.

"He is the person in charge of the camps. He receives young men from all countries. He accepts you or rejects you. And he takes care of the expenses for the camps. He makes arrangements for you when you travel coming in or leaving," Ressam said.

Prospective recruits in Pakistan would meet Abu Zubaydah, who would assign them to camps. When they finished training, he placed them in cells overseas.

These are all things that make me question Suskind's accusations. Though none of them outright disprove it. I think people need to hold off on making categorical statements about what Bush knew until this is further investigated. Which unfortunately is not being done in even some of the more respected lefty blogs.