NY Times drew false "contrast" between Blair, other Obama officials

In an April 23 New York Times "news analysis," reporter Scott Shane purported to draw a "contrast" between Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who has stated that "high value information came from interrogations in which" harsh interrogation methods were used, and "[President] Obama and most of his top aides," who "have argued that the use of those methods betrayed American values -- and anyway, produced unreliable information." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, Blair has also said that he opposes the use of the harsh interrogation tactics detailed in recently released memos from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, reportedly calling the tactics "graphic and disturbing" and stating: "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Shane also wrote:

Many intelligence officials, including some opposed to the brutal methods, confirm that the program produced information of great value, including tips on early-stage schemes to attack tall buildings on the West Coast and buildings in New York's financial district and Washington. Interrogation of one Qaeda operative led to tips on finding others, until the leadership of the organization was decimated. Removing from the scene such dedicated and skilled plotters as [Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed, or the Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali, almost certainly prevented future attacks.

But the claim that the use of harsh interrogation techniques on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed produced "tips" that prevented an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the tallest skyscraper on the West Coast, conflicts with the chronology of events put forth on multiple occasions by the Bush administration -- a fact the Times did not mention. Indeed, as Slate.com's Timothy Noah has noted, the Bush administration said that the Library Tower attack was thwarted in February 2002 -- more than a year before Mohammed was captured in March 2003.

From Shane's April 23 New York Times "news analysis":

Even the most exacting truth commission may have a hard time determining for certain whether brutal interrogations conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency helped keep the country safe.

Last week's release of long-secret Justice Department interrogation memorandums has given rise to starkly opposing narratives about what, if anything, was gained by the C.I.A.'s use of waterboarding, wall-slamming and other physical pressure to shock and intimidate Qaeda operatives.

Senior Bush administration officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and cheered by many Congressional Republicans, are fighting a rear-guard action in defense of their record. Only by using the harshest methods, they insist, did the intelligence agency get the information it needed to round up Qaeda killers and save thousands of American lives.

Even President Obama's new director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, wrote in a memorandum to his staff last week that "high value information came from interrogations in which these methods were used," an assertion left out when the memorandum was edited for public release. By contrast, Mr. Obama and most of his top aides have argued that the use of those methods betrayed American values -- and anyway, produced unreliable information. Those are a convenient pair of opinions, of course: the moral balancing would be far trickier if the C.I.A. methods were demonstrated to have been crucial in disrupting major plots.

For both sides, the political stakes are high, as proposals for a national commission to unravel the interrogation story appear to be gaining momentum. Mr. Obama and his allies need to discredit the techniques he has banned. Otherwise, in the event of a future terrorist attack, critics may blame his decision to rein in C.I.A. interrogators.