When Scaife News Sources Collide

First there's the Scaife-Funded Heritage Foundation on the "connection" between the killing of Osama bin Laden and the "enhanced interrogations" of the Bush Administration:

A senior official who briefed the press early this morning explained that “detainees in the post-9/11 period flagged for us individuals who may have been providing direct support to bin Laden and his deputy, [Ayman al-] Zawahiri, after their escape from Afghanistan.”

He continued: “One courier in particular had our constant attention. Detainees gave us his nom de guerre, or his nickname, and identified him as both a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of September 11, and a trusted assistant of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the former number three of al-Qaeda who was captured in 2005.” The United States obtained this information four years ago, the official stated.

One more crucial fact: According to the “detainees” (note the plural), this individual was “one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden.”

Think about that: This lead was developed during the Bush Administration, most likely from al-Qaeda associates picked up and transferred to Guantanamo and subject to interrogations that critics have repeatedly deemed to be pointless in terms of intelligence value. Whether these detainees remain at Guantanamo is an open question.

And then, a paragraph later:

For years, we have heard that strategic interrogation of detainees at Guantanamo was worthless, that the information is (at best) stale and almost certainly of dubious reliability. The most strident call such interrogations illegal.

So, yes. Torture led to the intel that led to the bullets that killed Osama bin Laden.

Then there's Salena Zito, columnist at the Scaife-owned Tribune-Review:

Commandos killed bin Laden in a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that began with the intelligence community identifying his courier last year and tracking his movements in the months leading up to Sunday.

In the past decade, critics assailed the CIA for not connecting the dots before the 9/11 terror attacks, for failing to capture bin Laden and for using enhanced interrogation techniques.

Remember, the "enhanced interrogation" was water boarding. Though Zito is unsure what connection there is between Abbottabad and waterboarding:

It is unclear whether interrogations played a role in identifying the bin Laden courier whose trail led to the terror leader's door.

Then there's the Scaife-owned Newsmax, interviewing none other than Don Rumsfeld himself:

Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role in obtaining intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares: “First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a myth that’s been perpetrated around the country by critics.

“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

So which is it? Waterboarding led to Abbottabad or didn't it? They really should get their stories straight.

Waterboarding's still illegal, though.

The Trib, Newsmax, And Scaife

First off, we have our old friend Chris Horner. You remember, he's the lawyer (who the Trib misleadingly calls a "researcher") working for the Scaife-Funded Competitive Enterprise Institute who shows up occasionally on the Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to show how the stolen Climategate emails "prove" how Climate Change is a hoax or something.

Even though it isn't.

Today we see this:

Climate fraud: A federal government inspector general "has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries widely if implausibly described as clearing the ClimateGate principals of wrongdoing were, in fact, whitewashes," writes Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the Daily Caller. One of those "studies" was conducted by Penn State. He says the university may have been "complicit" in a "cover-up." Stay tuned.

There are TWO "consider the source" moments in this paragraph. The first is the aforementioned Horner and then we get something called the "Daily Caller." What's the "Daily Caller" you ask? The Washington Examiner calls it "The right's answer to the Huffingtonpost."

Consider the source. Regardless of the content, the fact that the Trib still fails to disclose all the Scaife money involved in this story is enough to undermine the credibility of everyone involved.

But it's not limited to the Trib. Take a look at this from Mediamatters:

For at least the third time in the past year, right-wing website Newsmax has provided positive coverage to a Florida politician whose campaign or political committee has received money from Newsmax or its CEO, Christopher Ruddy. This financial support has not been disclosed in campaign endorsements or other articles about these politicians at Newsmax.

That name should raise some red flags, no? He hosts fundraisers for/donates money to candidates then his "news" source covers those candidates (nicely) while failing to disclose the financial ties that bind him to those candidates.

Why am I telling you this?

Richard Mellon Scaife owns 40% of Newsmax.

Consider the source.

The circle jerk continues.