On Hardball just now Matthews brings up the use of torture to produce the evidence to validate the invasion of Iraq. For some reason he didn't expand on it too much, so it is important to note that it was the drought of evidence linking Saddam to 911 that brought the push to legitimize torture.
The Iraq War relied on WMD (yellow cake from Africa) and Saddam's link to terrorism. Both of these items made their way to the 2003 State of the Union Address.
But we really caught me was Buchanan's response because he brought up something that I haven't really seen addressed yet.
Matthews: ... among the efforts they were efforting down there was trying to get these suspected terrorists to admit some relation between Iraq and 911 so they could justify this war. What do you make of that? In other words, trying to get them to lie....
Buchanan: If they were trying to gert someone to lie that would be appalling. If they used these techniques to say, "You know, look, we know that you guys got this illegal stuff, you got all this garbage over there, now tell us where it is, so we can get it and destroy it, that would be different".
Matthews: Does it offend you ideologically that we were using torture to establish an ideological case to go to war with Iraq?
Buchanan: [snip] If they did that the whole thing ought to be brought up and investigated.
Now, what really stands out to me here is Buchanan's first statement. We now know that interrogation techniques known to illicit false confessions were employed against detainees to optain information justifying the invasion of Iraq.
What Buchanan seems to be referring to is post-invasion torture. It sounds like he is saying that these techniques could be used against people to find out, I am surmising, where the WMDs are. He says that's okay. But it's not.
These techniques are known to produce false confessions, not real information. Upon getting into Iraq and not finding weapons of mass destruction, did we then begin torturing detainees to tell us "where the WMDs are"?
The Iraq War was sold on two principles, Hussein's possession of WMDs and Hussein's connection to terrorists organizations. From the 2003 State of the Union:
Pillar 1 (WMD):
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
Pillar 2 (Links to terrorism):
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
We now know that the Bush Administration used torture to obtain a link between Saddam and terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq. Did they then use torture in the hunt for WMDs as Buchanan seems to be suggesting? Is this what detainees in Iraq were be "softened" for?