In keeping with recent tradition, the New York Times is finally uncovering things the CIA was doing two years ago (destroying evidence). And our National Intelligence Estimate is just now telling us things Iran stopped doing five years ago (making nukes). But as our President displayed after the Intelligence Estimate was released, facts matter little compared to the context you put them in. “I have said Iran is dangerous,” Bush declared, “and the NIE estimate doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world - quite the contrary.” Great.

But the New York Times shouldn’t start patting themselves on the back just yet. They too are guilty of Bush-style logic, jumping to the easiest, most convenient explanation as to why the two Interrogation tapes were destroyed. Notice their attempt to put the headline “9/11 Panel Study Finds that CIA Withheld Tapes” into context.

While informative, this info-graphic bears little relation to the far more pressing information in the article it ran next to, except if you assume the interrogation tapes were destroyed because the two Al-Qaeda operatives were waterboarded. The thing is, the 9/11 Panel didn’t ask for the videotapes of the interrogations, only the information that was extracted from them. So if it was the information on the tapes that the CIA was withholding, and nobody cared how they got it, why are we all assuming they were destroyed in 2005 because of a little waterboarding? Doesn’t the fact that the CIA was hiding them prove there might be something on the tapes a little more dangerous than a guy getting water poured on him?

According to the memo from Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, the Panel first requested the CIA’s operational cables and internal documents relating to the interrogations. The CIA refused. Then they tried coming up with a list of questions about what the detainees said. Twice the CIA delivered responses that either didn’t satisfy the questions or were deemed insufficient. Then eventually the panel just gave up. The memo basically lays out those three attempts to find out the content of the tapes, and it proves the CIA was determined to keep even a summary of the tapes secret. Then for years the CIA denied even having them. Sure sounds like there was little more than waterboarding going on, yet that point gets lost in the New York Times article. The most important paragraph of the Zelikow memo didn’t even get mentioned by the writer, Mark Manzetti.

“Late in its investigation, reacting to press allegations that Abu Zubaydah had referred to a Saudi prince in his interrogations, the Commission asked “what information does the CIA have” about whether such assertions were made in Zubaydah’s interrogations. (CIA Question for the Record No. 3, dated May 20, 2004). We knew the CIA believed this was untrue but we asked the question formally to get any relevant information for the record. We cannot find a record of a CIA response. ” - Page 6 of the Zelikow Memo

Philip Zelikow, a former deputy to Condoleezza Rice, makes a vast understatement when he refers to the press allegations surrounding “a Saudi prince.” In fact, Zubayda named four Saudi Princes, at least one of whom was flown out by the Administration in the week after 9/11. At least someone thought there was something to the assertion, because that prince and two others Zubayda named all died in the same week after their names were leaked abroad. Zubayda also attempted to hang himself after making the confession. This story is explained in more detail in an earlier post on this blog and by the journalist who uncovered the story.

I urge everyone to read that link, because unlike me, Gerald Posner has actually talked to sources in the White House and the CIA. I realize that Posner may come off pompous, but his information has been confirmed by at least one other journalist, James Risen, who verified the story with his own sources. Also note that Possner is famous for being a debunker of conspiracy theories, not an advocate of them; and that the CIA never gave any evidence to the 9/11 Commission to disprove Possner’s claims. Now I’m not suggesting everything Zubayda confessed to was true. I have no doubt Zubayda was tortured, and torture tends to produce lots of false leads, which in turn lead to false terror alerts. This is probably why our Administration is such a fan. However, placing these tapes’ destruction in the context of the waterboarding debate obscures the more pressing issue: that these tapes were withheld and destroyed because of their content. And if the content of that tape can produce three dead Saudi princes in one week, there’s probably something to it.

What’s going to be very interesting to see is what the former Head of the National Clandestine Service who gave the order for the tape destruction, Jose Rodriguez, says when he goes before Congress on January 15. There’s been numerous reports proving he consulted CIA and White House lawyers (including Alberto Gonzalez and Chief of Staff David Addington) before destroying the evidence. But requesting immunity was probably a good move on his part, considering he’s been burned twice before by the CIA - once during the Iran-Contra affair, and then again in 1997 when he was demoted for trying to protect his friend from prosecution in the Dominican Republic. Who knows who’s going to go to jail if Rodriguez refuses to be the fall guy this time around.