The above link is from the NYT. When you read it you can note that:

Colonel West testified that he did not know whether ''any corroboration'' of a plot was ever found..."

What we do know is it this:

.

...there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he (West) was relieved of command on...

Wikipedia

So in reality you have nothing to prove that the interrogation did not thwart terrorist attacks. In fact, it appears that they did. Or at least until someone the terrorists feared left. Then they resumed.

If you think that interrogation does not produce results then you are only looking for what you believe. Interrogation does produce information and the results of all interrogation can, and is, vetted for accuracy. The problem is that vetting takes time, which is why the CIA has limited waterboarding to the two cases discussed in the ABC interview.

Link 1 ABC transcript.

Link 2 ABC transcript.

In them you will discover that the information yielded was accurate and allowed the stopping of numerous attacks.

I tell you all of this knowing that my doing so is like telling a teenager something that is friends disagree with.

In this case Col West was fined $5000 and allowed to retire as a Col upon completion of his 20 years. That shows the weakness of the Army's case.

That is the Army's loss. He is a fine man and was an officer's officer. Read what those who served under him said.

So that you don't misunderstand my feelings, if I was in a similar position as West I would have done the same thing.

Now. Go off someplace and moan about the rights of the terrorists.

More than seven in 10 of Obama's supporters said they are certain to participate in the caucuses, compared with 59 percent of Clinton's backers.

HIll backers have no fear though:

Clinton's supporters, however, are the most firmly behind her. Seventy percent said they will definitely caucus for her in two weeks, while Edwards's and Obama's supporters were more apt to say there is a good chance they might change their minds.

Second Choices included, may be Hillary's weak point:

Because of the rules for Iowa's Democratic caucuses, voters' second choices can affect the results in many precincts. When the votes for other candidates were reallocated on the basis of second choices, Obama led with 37 percent to Clinton's 31 percent and Edwards's 26 percent.

I'm not a firefighter, but anything in an office which takes an hour to get under control is pretty serious.

And, no, I don't doubt for a minute the provenance of the fire.

Accused of homosexual acts, Iranian Makwan Moloudzadeh was murdered in prison by guards earlier this month.  I'm not one to flare up in anger, but this is f***ing barbaric.  In the meantime, the U.S. is still considering deportation of Iranian gays begging for amnesty... further proof that our own fundamentalists have more in common with Iran than they'd like to admit.

[But there may be another factor in Clinton's success among Latinos, particularly with regard to Obama. And it may have less to do with enthusiasm for her candidacy than with a lack of enthusiasm for the Illinois senator. Over the last two decades, there has been evidence of growing hostility from Hispanics toward African Americans. Some of this hostility is the result of conflicts, or perceived conflicts, over politically controlled resources in cities and states. But as Tanya K. Hernandez, a professor of law at George Washington, has argued recently, it may also be a legacy of an older Latin American prejudice against blacks that has been transplanted to this country.

While this conflict passes largely unnoticed in the popular press, African American and Latino sociologists have been conducting extensive surveys in Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and Philadelphia. These surveys have generally found that Latinos display more prejudice toward African Americans than African Americans do toward Latinos or than whites display toward African Americans. In the words of University of Houston sociologist Tatcho Mindiola, Jr. and two associates, "in general African Americans have more positive views of Hispanics than vice versa."

In Mindiola's surveys of racial attitudes in Houston, they asked Latino respondents to describe blacks. Some of the terms that most often came to mind were "noisy," "loud," "lazy," "dropouts/uneducated," "hostile," "complainers/whiners," "bad people," "prejudiced," "aggressive," "angry," "disrespectful/rude," and "violent." Only 54 percent of U.S.-born Latinos and 46 percent of immigrant Latinos approved of their children dating an African American. 41 percent of U.S.-born Latinos thought blacks had "too much power." Half thought that "most government programs that are designated for minorities favor African Americans."

Duke University's Paula McClain, working with nine other sociologists, found similar attitudes among Latinos living in Durham, North Carolina. According to McClain et al., "Latino immigrants hold negative stereotypical views of blacks and feel that they have more in common with whites than with blacks." For instance, 58.9 percent of Latino immigrants, but only 9.3 percent of whites, reported feeling that "few or almost no blacks are hard-working."

These attitudes were not confined to working-class Latinos. Yolanda Flores Niemann of Washington State University and four other sociologists discovered among Latino college students the same kind of stereotypes that Mindiola found in Houston. Among the top ten traits that Latino college students ascribed to black males were "antagonistic," "speak loudly," "muscular," "criminal," "dark skin," and "unmannerly." ]