Torture Advocate Thiessen ‘Browbeat’ CIA Analyst: Colleague

By
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 4:52 pm

As a postscript to yesterday’s fact-check of Marc Thiessen, a former Bush White House speechwriter and torture proponent, notice how Thiessen, appearing on “Morning Joe,” wrapped himself in the mantle of CIA professionalism when challenged on the efficacy of torture. But according to a former colleague in the White House speechwriting office, Thiessen is hardly as doting on the CIA when it reaches conclusions he dislikes.

This is from page 201 of “Speech-Less: Tales of a White House Survivor,” a recent tell-all memoir by Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer, who recalled the following incident with his then-boss:

When Marc was writing remarks on the war in Iraq, he tried to browbeat a CIA analyst who was unwilling to state unequivocally that America was winning in the war on terror. “The president wants to say we’re winning!” Marc thundered. Just what we needed — another accusation that the Bush White House wanted to politicize intelligence.

In the index to Latimer’s book, a portion of the references to Thiessen is catalogued: “Gaffes by, 201-203.” This man is now a Washington Post columnist.

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

6 Comments

chrisjay
Comment posted February 23, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

Cooking the intel on how to gather intel——a venerable Cheney/Rumsfeld tradition


kentmueller
Comment posted February 24, 2010 @ 2:37 am

Bring me the facts. These are the facts? These aren't the facts I ordered! Take these back and bring me the facts I ordered!


Irish_Wake
Comment posted February 24, 2010 @ 10:24 am

Perhaps Thiessen is showing us the cornerstone of neo-conservative ideology.

They believe the intelligence was not fictional
because they do not understand the definition of intelligence.
Thus, their ability to change data to support a goal.

They believe that acts of torture are not torture
because they do not understand the definition of torture.
Thus, their ability to believe torture is not torture.

They believe their acts are legal
because they do not understand the definition of illegality.
Thus, 'our' acts are legal, while 'their' acts are illegal.

They believe their cause is superior
because they do not understand the definition of reality.
Thus, 'we' are superior to 'them'.

With this gelatinous thinking, it is impossible to admit it is wrong to attack Iraq, torture citizens of allied countries, or base political campaigns on Swift Boats?


smartalek
Comment posted February 25, 2010 @ 2:09 am

Yet again, we are confronted with the questions, “are they deliberately lying? are they too ignorant and/or stupid to know the truth, perhaps willfully so? are they literally clinically insane, or otherwise delusional?”
And it now seems that the inescapable conclusion is,
“Yes.
“Yes, they are.
“All of the above.”


smartalek
Comment posted February 25, 2010 @ 7:09 am

Yet again, we are confronted with the questions, “are they deliberately lying? are they too ignorant and/or stupid to know the truth, perhaps willfully so? are they literally clinically insane, or otherwise delusional?”
And it now seems that the inescapable conclusion is,
“Yes.
“Yes, they are.
“All of the above.”


Wonk Room » Sympathy For The Thiessen
Pingback posted February 25, 2010 @ 2:29 pm

[...] Spencer Ackerman found this story, in the memoir of one of Thiessen’s former White House colleagues, of Thiessen pressuring a [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.