Wilkerson Strikes Out On MSNBC

But it is obvious that the basic timeline of Wilkerson's story does not work, drawing into question Wilkerson's veracity. Wilkerson says that Cheney ordered the techniques used on an al Qaeda terrorist in "April and May 2002" and it didn't stop until Ibn Shaykh al Libi, who Wilkerson says was waterboarded by a foreign intelligence service, revealed such links. The problem is that al Libi discussed links between Iraq and al Qaeda in February 2002--two months before Wilkerson claims that VP Cheney supposedly ordered the enhanced techniques used. Therefore, it could not have been al Libi's admission that stopped the "torture" of another al Qaeda terrorist two months later.

Wilkerson's story simply does not add up.

So, Wilkerson went on MSNBC last night in an attempt to salvage his tale. He didn't. Instead, his appearance (in a highly favorable setting where a fawning Maddow did not challenge him at all) raises even more questions. For example, Wilkerson had this to say:

" The pushback against me from even my own interlocutors in the last 24 to 48 hours has been: 'Well, Tenet gave those instructions, not the Vice President.' And my reaction has been: 'Any time Tenet gave instructions like that he had cover from the Vice President, otherwise George Tenet would never give instructions like that.' "

Wilkerson's own "interlocutors"--whoever they are, assuming they even exist and actually have a scintilla of real knowledge about these affairs--say that VP Cheney did not issue the waterboarding order, Tenet did.

This is a big problem for Wilkerson. His whole story revolves around "Sith Lord" (Wilkerson's words) Cheney's alleged order. What is the basis for Wilkerson's claim that Cheney ordered the putative waterboarding, and not Tenet? In a rambling summary of his own personal crusade against the Bush administration, Wilkerson claims he has strung together "multiple sources" for his stories--in general. But when it comes to VP Cheney's specific role in Wilkerson's tale, Wilkerson said this:

"My assumption that it came from the Vice President's office I think is based on pretty firm ground."

So, Wilkerson's central allegation regarding VP Cheney is now admittedly based on his own "assumption," but Wilkerson's own "interlocutors" disagree.

Strike one.

And what of Ibn Shaykh al Libi--the al Qaeda operative who Wilkerson claims was waterboarded into confessing a phony link to the Iraqi regime? Wilkerson told Maddow that his story actually involves two al Qaeda operatives--al Libi and another unnamed al Qaeda terrorist who Wilkerson claims was also roughed up in order to find an Iraqi link. (Wilkerson's original story was so poorly written it was difficult to tell if he was talking about one or two different al Qaeda operatives.)

Wilkerson did not name this second al Qaeda operative. But with respect to al Libi he said this, "I'm a little confused about al Libi, I admit that." He added, "I still have to put that piece together."

But al Libi was the only named al Qaeda terrorist in Wilkerson's original account, and it was al Libi's testimony that Wilkerson claimed stopped the enhanced interrogation of another. Now, Wilkerson says that he has to put al Libi's story "together"--whatever that means (invent new details and sources?).

Wilkerson has, therefore, conceded that he does not actually know anything about al Libi.

Strike two.