OUR OWN CHALABI! Wilkerson bungled his factsagain. But progressives seem to love his fine tales: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, MAY 18, 2009
OUR OWN CHALABI: What was Nancy Pelosi told by the CIA in September 2002? We dont know, and neither does Maureen Dowd, who did a good job of pretending otherwise in yesterdays New York Times. Dowd never explained the murky state of our knowledge about that particular briefing, contenting herself with wacking Pelosi on a vaguer basis. Soon, though, Dowd made this announcement. Does anyone think this is true?
Really? The entire world knew in 2002? In fact, Dowd herself showed no sign of knowing about the Bushies dark arts in the period under discussion. According to Nexis, Dowds first relevant mention of torture occurred on May 6, 2004in reaction to the Abu Ghraib photos, which had just been broadcast. And in that column, she showed no sign of thinking the conduct displayed in the photos was part of a major display of dark arts. Heres the silly, purring way the lady started that column:
At the time, Kerry had wrapped up the Dem nomination for president. So of course Dowd had to start her piece with blather about his former gal pal. But if Dowd had a pretty good idea of what was happening when it came to the Bushies dark arts, she kept it to herself this dayand this column appeared in May 2004, twenty months after Pelosis briefing. In this column, the dysfunctional occupation of Iraq was being warped by arrogance [and] ideology, not by some major display of dark arts. But so what? Yesterday, we were told that the entire world knew about those arts almost two years before that.
So it goes when this Pulitzer Prize-winner (sic) types her twice-weekly column. You simply cant run a modern nation with intellectual leaders like this. But this is the way your nation does run. This is the state of your nation.
Needless to say, Dowd did something dumberand more revealingin yesterdays column. She cited the latest bombshell from former Powell aide Lawrence Wilkersonseveral days after it became clear that his bombshell involved a large factual bungle. Does Wilkerson ever get anything right? The answer to that question seems to be no, as well see below. But for many years, Wilkerson sat at the right hand of Powell. So Village sycophantshacks like Dowdrush to advance his fine claims. Indeed, Dowd cited the brilliant Powell aide in the 2004 column too. Darlings! Please! Its a matter of Hard Pundit Law!
Unfortunately, progressives are now treating Wilkerson in this Dowdian manner too. Progressives pimped Wilkersons bombshell last weeka bombshell which, predictably enough, was built around a groaning bungle. Does Wilkerson every get anything right? Since the answer seems to be no, we progressives should stop advancing his bombshells until theyre fact-checked. Simply put, a bombshell isnt a bombshell if its bungled or wrong.
A bit of background: Wilkerson made a strange, insult-laden appearance on last Tuesdays Rachel Maddow Show (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/15/09). The next day, Wilkerson expanded his presentation in this now-famous post at the Washington Note. His unreliable intellectual style was on vivid displaywhen he kept using an apparent quotation which wasnt a real quotation, for instance. In our experience, people who cut corners this way often turn out to be unreliable. So too with the childish name-calling Wilkerson carried over from his Maddow appearance. Its childishbut it pleases us rubes.
We were underwhelmed by Wilkersons post. But before he was done, he had seconded a fashionable new claima claim he hadnt made on Maddows program. His writing is a bit murky here. But this claim was soon being hailed on the liberal weband eventually, on Sunday, by Dowd:
Wilkersons claim about this furious effort was quickly trumpeted by important progressivesas a bombshell by Digby, as an incredibly important detail by Marcy Wheeler. But uh-oh! Wheeler soon withdrew her statement, linking readers to a post by Spencer Ackerman which makes it clear Wilkerson doesn't know what the timing of this was. (Wheelers words. I agree the timeline, as stated now, does not add up, she added.) For himself, Ackerman had quoted the Weekly Standards Thomas Joscelyn, who had written this: Wilkersons facts do not add up...when Wilkerson writes that the [Bush] administration authorized [the] harsh interrogation [of al Libi] in April and May of 2002' and al Libi had not revealed any al Qaida-Baghdad contacts until then, he is clearly wrong.
The fact that Wilkerson bungled his time-line doesnt mean that his larger claim about administration motives has to be wrong, of course. It does remind us of an important factWilkerson is a highly unreliable source. In truth, hes one of the worst fact-gatherers in recent American history. Beyond that, Wilkersons reply to Ackerman strikes us as embarrassing and weirdly revealing, for two reasons. (Be advised: Due to late-breaking information, todays profile of Wilkerson gets much more embarrassing as it goes):
Wheres the basic research: Its clear that Wilkersons time-line concerning al-Libi doesnt make sense. In fact, al-Libi had already linked Iraq to al Qaeda by February 2002 (he later retracted)long before the April-May date Wilkerson presented. (By February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency was already saying that al-Libi might be saying these things to curry favor with his interrogators.) Everyone can make a factual error of this type, of course. But in this case, the contradictory information presented by Joscelyn/Ackerman/Wheeler comes straight from the New York Timesand straight from DIA reports quoted in the rather well-known report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. These are extremely basic sources; obviously, Wilkerson should have been familiar with this material. Nor did Wilkerson present some contrary source when confronted by Ackerman (see below). Were willing to be corrected on this. But it seems to us that, if Wilkerson had researched this matter at all, he would have known that his time-line didnt make sense. (Note: This gets much worse below.)
We would find this shoddy fact-gathering oddif we hadnt seen this sort of thing before, from other players of Wilkersons rank. Sad but true: The higher up the ladder you go, the less careful players seem to be about basic information.
Wilkersons response: Even more embarrassing was Wilkersons reaction when Ackerman asked if he wanted to respond to Joscelyn. In response, Wilkerson described the way Powell was approached by CIA directors Tenet and McLaughlin in February 2003, four days before Powell made his fateful UN presentation:
Back in 2003, Powell and Wilkerson were never told of the DIA dissent. On its face, that claim is plausible, of coursebut Wilkerson was still pretending he hadnt heard about the dissent last week, although it had long been highly visible public information. (Why do we say he was pretending? Keep reading.)
Is Wilkersons account of Tenets conduct accurate? We have no way of knowing. But for the record: As Ackerman, Joscelyn and Wheeler agree, the information about al-Libi was already a year old at that point. If Tenet and McLaughlin gave Powell the impression that it was fresh as the morning dew, they were presumably conning him. Anyone can get fooled that way, of coursealthough youd like to think that seasoned players like Powell and Wilkerson would be a bit harder to fool. (Being sane, we do not assume that Wilkersons account of this matter is accurate.) But even now, some six years later, Wilkerson didnt seem to have done the basic background research on this matterresearch involving the New York Times and the Senate select report. And as he continued, a second problem appeared: He still didnt seem to have come to terms with the possibility that Tenet may have conned him and Powell in 2003. He still seemed to be treating Tenet and McLaughlin as unimpeachable sources:
Wilkerson had no idea about al-Libi? Keep reading to see how fake that claim seems to be. But its strange to see Wilkerson seeming to vouch for Tenet as a reliable sourceeven now, after all the statements hes made about the way the pluperfect Powell got played by lesser mortals.
Others know this material better than we do. But Wheeler and Ackerman, specialists both, agree that Wilkerson bungled his time lineand the sources they used to demonstrate this are extremely basic. Our point about this is quite simple. It returns us to Wilkersons repeated, absolutely-no-questions-asked appearances on the Maddow Show.
Can we talk? Wilkerson has an exceptionally bad track record when it comes to information gathering. Specifically, the gentleman played a leading role in the creation of Powells disastrously inaccurate report to the UN. Based on last weeks factual bungling, his skills at fact-gathering havent improved as the years have passed.
We dont know why progressives would assume the accuracy of any claim by this person. But yesterday, someone else rushed to advance his recent claims; Maureen Dowd did so in her column, the column where she told the world that everyone knew about this stuff back in 2002. But even before Dowd vouched for Powells man (for about the ten millionth time), two leading progressives had done the same thing. Why on earth would we assume the accuracy of the guys latest bombshell?
Oh wait! We might know the answer!
You see, it almost seems that Wilkerson is becoming our own Ahmed Chalabi. He says the things we long to hearand so we rush to affirm them. When he gets his basic facts wrong (as he constantly does), we write it off as a trivial error. After all, hes willing to name-call Cheney! His larger viewa view we lovesurely must be correct!
When Dowd pimps someone, you know hes wrong. In this case, though, Wilkerson has also been getting pimped by progressives, most absurdly by Maddow. Will Wilkersons larger claim turn out to be righthis fashionable claim about the motives behind those interrogations? Thats always possible, of course. But Wilkerson is a highly unreliable source. And hes a devoted priest in the High Church of Sanctified Powell.
Here at THE HOWLER, were tired of seeing this squirrelly guy pimped like a lord on the Maddow Show. But then, hes almost becoming Our Own Chalabi. Hes booked to tell us that Cheney was vilenot himself, and not Saint Powell.
Our dark hearts make us believe his tales, even though they are constantly wrong.
How deeply biazrre is Wilkerson: Wilkerson has been boo-hoo-hooing about these matters for years. In his accounts, he and Powell are always the innocent dupes of dark, malevolent players. (He tends to blame whoever is in the public spot-light that week.) We progressives seem to love the way he lowers the boom on other Bush players. We run to lap up his self-serving taleseven though theyre demonstrably wrong.
What follows is a typical presentation by Wilkerson. He made it in 2006 on the progressive PBS program, NOW. In this performance, Wilkerson was rolling over on Tenet, who was very hot at the time. He and Powell were pawns in Tenets game, at least in 2006:
Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that Powell didnt do his bestthat he was complicit in this hoax. (For example, see this detailed post by Jonathan Schwarza post which covers some material we ourselves have reviewed in the past.) But so what? Powell and Wilkerson have peddled these self-serving tales for yearsand Village People like Dowd lap them up. These tales absolve Saint Powell, after all. Within the Village, affirming this crap is required by Hard Pundit Law.
Now, progressives are pimping Wilkerson tooespecially Maddow. By the way, how completely bizarre is Wilkersons conduct? Just review the following exchange, which came right at the start of that PBS program. On that program, Wikerson instantly cited the al-Libi matterthe same matter he didnt seem to know about last week!
Jesus Christ. Thats the same dissent about al-Libi Wilkerson seemed clueless about last week! Three years ago, he brought it up. Last week, he was thoroughly bollixed.
Might we tell you something basic? By any normal standard of judgment, this guys head is full of squirrels! But one thing never changes in Wilkersons reports; no matter who hes blaming, he and Powell are always the innocent victims. In 2006, he was blaming Tenet, who was very hot at the time; last week, he was bashing Cheney and seeming to vouch for Tenet. But this guy has been feeding progressives this pap for years. And we lap it up:
That specific claim may well be true. But last week, Wilkerson seemed to be citing Tenet as a reliable sourceas the reason why he still doubted that claim about the al-Libi time-line. But then, in 2006, he seemed to know the facts about al-Libi. Last week, he seemed surprised.
Lets say it again: By normal standards, this guys head contains a bag of squirrels, as anybody could have seen by checking his demeanor and claims on the Maddow Show last Tuesday. But we progressives keep buying his stories. In 2006, Brancaccio asked him no tough questions about his own conduct, or that of Powell. Three years later, Maddows lips are locked to his keister in a way which threatens blood flow of both parties.
You see, Wilkerson is our own Chalabi. We have become our own neo-cons, so much do we long to hear the stories we pre-adore.
How much do we love our own stories: How much do we love our pre-approved stories? You knowthe way the neo-cons loved their tales? Consider Jane Mayers appearance on last Fridays Maddow Show.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with anything Mayer said. But Mayer appeared as an expert guestand her comments about Cheneys post-9/11 conduct didnt seem to jibe with the thesis Maddow presented in her long introduction. If anything, Mayers portrait tended to contradict Maddows thesis. But Maddow showed no sign of noticing. After all, Mayers portrait of Cheney was broadly unflattering, just as Maddows portrait had been. At present, that seems to be close enough for progressive news work.
(To watch the segment, just click this. If MSNBC ever posts the transcript, it will do so here. It hasnt been posted on Nexis either. MSNBCs other Friday-night programs have all been posted. More on this problem below.)
Please note if you watch that segment: In Maddows six-minute introduction, she advanced a developing theoryCheney just promoted the use of torture as a way to invent a phony link between Iraq and al Qaeda. This theory could be true, of courselike almost any theory. But in Mayers six-minute interview, she doesnt seem to advance this theory at all. Nor did Maddow ask a single question about this particular thesis.
What did Mayer say about Cheney? She said that, post-9/11, he was becoming obsessive with the threat of terrorism. She said he demanded just every single piece of, scrap of information about threats that might be coming toward the United States. She said he went through unfiltered threat information twice dailyfirst by himself, then with Bush. She suggested this was an unwise practicea practice which would just make anybody lose their judgment. In her portrait, Cheney seems to work himself, and Bush, into a fear-based frenzy. This portrait doesnt supportmay even tend to contradictthe portrait Maddow had drawn.
What were Cheneys actual motives? Here at THE HOWLER, we simply dont know. But Maddow failed to ask a single pertinent question about the theory shed just advanced. Wed like to know what Mayer would have said about this newly burgeoning theory. But alas. She wasnt asked.
If MSNBC ever posts the transcript, it will do so here. On Nexis, Maddows shows from last Monday, Wednesday Thursday and Friday are still MIAmissing in action. Every other MSNBC evening show has long since been posted.
Strange, aint it? The news channel seems to play by Bush rules when it comes to public disclosure. Though only for one of its programs.