Well, now, you make the call! A coalition of development workers and other foreign-policy practitioners known as the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network is turning to the fans to decide, as if this were a rap battle or dance-off. In a poll up on the MFAN Website, anyone can vote for a slate of potential administrators, stretching from former Secretary of State Colin Powell to ex-Nebraska Sen. (and leading Obamacon) Chuck Hagel. The current runaway favorite? Dark-horse Gayle Smith, the National Security Council’s senior director for relief, stabilization and development.

Of course, this is a crowdsourced poll, not a presidential nomination or a Senate confirmation hearing. But for USAID, all else has already failed, so why not?

Video courtesy of Obama’s Quagmire, after I tweeted I couldn’t find YouTube clips of Kennedy on Iraq.

[E]ven when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee “was compliant” (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, “revealed” such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.

Did Wilkerson mean to say that? And what was the genesis of that “investigation,” anyway? I caught up with Wilkerson via email.

["Investigation" is] just a term I use.  Probably more appropriate to say “research”, as I am an academic now.

In 2004, just before the Abu Ghraib photos were plastered over the country, Secretary Powell walked in to my office and told me the photos were going to be revealed and to find out what had happened.  He said that Will Taft, his Legal Advisor, was working on the legal aspects and he wanted me to work on the political aspects as well as how we got to where we were–a chronology and such.  From that point on, I have been “investigating”.  I have not ceased.

Wilkerson didn’t specify a timeline for the torture of al-Libi, but he did write that manufacturing the “smoking gun” was the context for the Bush administration’s top-level deliberations in “April and May of 2002″ about adopting an “enhanced interrogation” program for use on Abu Zubaydah, then the senior-most al-Qaeda captive in CIA custody. Al-Libi, however, was in CIA custody at the end of 2001 and rendered to Egypt for torture in or around January 2002. Thomas Joscelyn did some inferential reading at the Weekly Standard’s blog to refute Wilkerson:

Wilkerson’s facts do not add up. Al Libi’s original testimony regarding Iraq-al Qaeda links occurred months before Wilkerson says waterboarding was used to get this admission out of him. We know this because the DIA filed a report saying that it did not trust al Libi’s testimony regarding the training of al Qaeda operatives in Iraq in February 2002 -– two months before Wilkerson says the Bush administration authorized the Egyptians to use harsh interrogation methods on al Libi.

So, 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 Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts” until then, he is clearly wrong. Al Libi, according to the DIA, first discussed this putative tie between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda before Wilkerson says that harsh interrogation techniques were authorized by Vice President Cheney.

As Joscelyn writes, the DIA indeed filed a February 2002 notice indicating distrust for al-Libi’s claims about Iraq assisting al-Qaeda’s efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. “It is more likely that this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers,” a DIA report known as DITSUM #044-02 reads. “Ibn al-Shaykh [al-Libi] has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may describing [sic] scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.” Yet al-Libi’s dubious information made its way into the intelligence bloodstream, all the way up to Colin Powell’s since-discredited 2003 speech to the United Nations justifying the invasion — the first draft of which had a big assist from Cheney’s office, including then-chief of staff Scooter Libby. In March 2004, after the invasion, the CIA withdrew its support for al-Libi’s claims.

Joscelyn wrote, “It is doubtful that any part of Wilkerson’s story is true.” I asked Wilkerson if he wished to respond.

If their account is the accurate one, explain to me why Tenet and McLaughlin [then the director and deputy director of the CIA] came to Secretary Powell in February 2003–yes, 2003–with the information about al-Libi as if it were fresh as the morning dew. Powell was ready to throw out almost everything Tenet had given him on the contacts of Baghdad with terrorists, particularly al-Qa’ida. Suddenly, on 1 Feb, there was the shocking revelation of a high-level al-Qa’ida operative who had just revealed significant contacts between al-Qa’ida and Baghdad. Powell changed his mind and that information went into his presentation to the [United Nations Security Council] on 5 Feb 2003. We were never told of the DIA dissent.

And what about the timeline — or suggested timeline — in the original post?

I am basing my conclusions on the fact that DCI Tenet and DDCI McLaughlin presented the information about al-Libi to Secretary Powell in Feb 2003 and not in Feb 2002.  The strong impression was that the interrogation had just occurred or, at a minimum, that Tenet had just received the information (otherwise, why wouldn’t they have given it to Powell much earlier, say when he first expressed concerns over the terrorist links some days earlier?).

I have no idea when the Egyptians waterboarded al-Libi other than what Tenet and McLauglin implied in their presentation to Powell–which, incidentally, was quite effective on him.

Who says the Egyptians tortured al-Libi in Feb 2002?   I’m prepared to modify my views if that can be proved.  But not by much because that is a minor part of my position.

“I promised the president of the United States that if I was fortunate enough to be able to be honored with this position, what I’d present him with is the very best intelligence and I would provide it straight to him whether he wants to hear it or not,” Panetta said. “If by chance someone goes out and strays from that position, [or] indicates something that is contrary to the position that I have stated, I would not only bring it to the attention of that individual, I would bring it to the attention of the president of the United States.”

You can’t have “a group of yes-people around you,” Panetta continued. “The truth is something that sometimes depends on a particular perspective, but you’ve got to have a series of perspectives … Dissent is something I would encourage.”

From the new Washington Post poll:

Two in 10 independent voters said they are more inclined to vote for Obama because of Powell’s backing.

That is a huge share of a key voting bloc in an era when few people say they are swayed by big-name endorsements.  Powell retains a special appeal — especially among independents — for his reputation as a moderate, honest and respectable foreign policy figure who has served both parties. (For supportive data, see my post about Powell from before the endorsement.)

Now, I don’t think any endorsement is going to be the crucial factor for the people who truly remain undecided 12 days out from Election Day.  But the nod from a Republican foreign policy expert is clearly solidifying Obama’s support among independents — and may be helping him among military families and conservative Democrats.

The most respected Republican foreign policy voice in America will speak on “Meet The Press” Sunday, sparking rumors about a potential presidential endorsement. Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign will be listening closely.

Obama spokesperson Linda Douglas said today that she has no news on the Powell front, but the campaign would obviously love his endorsement.  “We would welcome the support of somebody with such a distinguished and honorable career as General Powell,” she told me this morning, as Obama’s plane flew to Virginia for a rally.

Obama has previously cited Powell as a potential member of his administration, and the two have been in touch before. “I know they talk from time to time about foreign policy matters,” Douglas said, though she did not know the last time they spoke.

Powell is widely viewed as a thoughtful public servant with credibility (and experience) in both parties.  Since leaving the Bush administration, he has been cast in journalistic accounts as a cautious conservative who sounded alarms about President George W. Bush’s approach to Iraq. In the new movie “W.,” Powell is the only voice of reason in a bunker packed with incompetent neocons.

Warnings given in private about policy decisions cannot offset Powell’s hawkish presentation to the U.N. on the eve of the Iraq war. But unlike so many war cheerleaders in politics and the media, he owned up to his mistakes. On national television, Powell called the U.N. address a “blot” on his record.

In a tough period for the GOP, Powell remains his party’s most beloved national figure. During his tenure as secretary of state, his unfavorable rating held to a remarkable five percent — more in line with Santa Claus than a Bush administration official.

Powell’s unusually strong support across the political spectrum, burned into the public imagination in serving Bill Clinton and two Bushes makes him one of the few people who’s endorsement could actually influence voters.

“[An endorsement] would get several days worth of coverage,” said Time’s Mark Halperin on MSNBC today. “I think for some voters who are wary about voting for an African-American who they don’t know, who doesn’t have experience in national security, [Powell would be] a validator who is almost unique in America today.”

If Powell endorses anyone, his views on Iraq and past praise for Obama make a Democratic nod seem more plausible.