CNN takes at face value the word of conspiracy hack who worked under Powell

Posted by: ST on May 15, 2009 at 7:24 pm

Ok – first, the “story” (via Karl at Patterico’s):

(CNN) — Finding a “smoking gun” linking Iraq and al Qaeda became the main purpose of the abusive interrogation program the Bush administration authorized in 2002, a former State Department official told CNN on Thursday.

The allegation was included in an online broadside aimed at former Vice President Dick Cheney by Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. In it, Wilkerson wrote that the interrogation program began in April and May of 2002, and then-Vice President Cheney’s office kept close tabs on the questioning.

“Its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at preempting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al Qaeda,” Wilkerson wrote in The Washington Note, an online political journal.

Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, said his accusation is based on information from current and former officials. He said he has been “relentlessly digging” since 2004, when Powell asked him to look into the scandal surrounding the treatment of prisoners at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

“I couldn’t walk into a courtroom and prove this to anybody, but I’m pretty sure it’s fairly accurate,” he told CNN.

Most of Wilkerson’s online essay criticizes Cheney’s recent defense of the “alternative” interrogation techniques the Bush administration authorized for use against suspected terrorists. Cheney has argued the interrogation program was legal and effective in preventing further attacks on Americans.

Critics say the tactics amounted to the illegal torture of prisoners in U.S. custody and have called for investigations of those who authorized them.

Representatives of the former vice president declined comment on Wilkerson’s allegations. But Wilkerson told CNN that by early 2002, U.S. officials had decided that “we had al Qaeda pretty much on the run.”

“The priority had turned to other purposes, and one of those purposes was to find substantial contacts between al Qaeda and Baghdad,” he said.

The argument that Iraq could have provided weapons of mass destruction to terrorists such as al Qaeda was a key element of the Bush administration’s case for the March 2003 invasion. But after the invasion, Iraq was found to have dismantled its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and the independent commission that investigated the 2001 attacks found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the two entities.

Wilkerson wrote that in one case, the CIA told Cheney’s office that a prisoner under its interrogation program was now “compliant,” meaning agents recommended the use of “alternative” techniques should stop.

At that point, “The VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods,” Wilkerson wrote.

“The detainee had not revealed any al Qaeda-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, ‘revealed’ such contacts.”

Al-Libi’s claim that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s government had trained al Qaeda operatives in producing chemical and biological weapons appeared in the October 2002 speech then-President Bush gave when pushing Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. It also was part of Powell’s February 2003 presentation to the United Nations on the case for war, a speech Powell has called a “blot” on his record.

Al-Libi later recanted the claim, saying it was made under torture by Egyptian intelligence agents, a claim Egypt denies. He died last week in a Libyan prison, reportedly a suicide, Human Rights Watch reported.

Bbbbut not so fast. Read James Kirchick’s devastating takedown of Wilkerson’s credibility here at TNR. The short version? He has none, which is confirmed by Thomas Joscelyn. But of course that hasn’t stopped the “Darth Cheney” haters on the left – like HuffPo, Andrew Sullivan, and Joe Conason- from taking Wilkerson’s word without question as more “definitive proof” of the alleged “sheer evilness and underhandedness” of Cheney, who they maintain was ok with the use of EITs purely so a link between AQ and Iraq could be established.

Wilkerson made a lame attempt at responding to Joscelyn’s assertions, but Joscelyn fired back by dissecting Wilkerson’s response piece by piece.

TNR is a left wing publication, and Weekly Standard is right wing. It’s rare you see writers at these two magazines agree on anything, but two of them do on the issues of both Lawrence Wilkerson’s credibility and assertions. Clearly, they’ve both done their research. The (rhetoricial) question is: Why didn’t CNN?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 Responses to “CNN takes at face value the word of conspiracy hack who worked under Powell”


  1. Carol says:

    Powell was a bad actor so it doesn’t surprise me that Wilkerson is trying to hurt the Bush administration.

    Never in my wildest dreams did I think it would get this bad!

  2. Again! Looks like CNN is trying to distract is from the real economic mess under Obama.

  3. Lorica says:

    “I couldn’t walk into a courtroom and prove this to anybody, but I’m pretty sure it’s fairly accurate,” he told CNN.

    You can stop reading right here. Until you can prove it, you can shut your face moron. Is this more of the Dan Rather, “it’s the spirit of the documents” garbage?!?!?!? God why do these people feel the need to open their yaps. Doesn’t he and CNN realize he looks like an idiot. Show us the proof fool.

    Another reason, he is only making Colin Powell look like a bigger idiot than he already does. Who would keep this fool as a chief of staff, unless they were big buddies in the military, which means Powell was all about rewarding friends, and not actually about promoting competent people. – Lorica

  4. Bachbone says:

    Lorica nailed it! In that one sentence are three modifiers “…couldn’t walk in[to]… and…prove…“, “…pretty sure…” and “…fairly accurate…” that destroy the reliability of the testimony, and any first year law student would have a field day cross examining. Even a cub reporter could see through those holes, but CNN isn’t interested in “reporting,” it’s a known and proven DNC flack.

  5. Carlos says:

    Well, is anyone surprised by this? After all, they take without question the words of two of the most notorious liars in D.C., Pelosi and the prez himself.