Joe Wilson
Joe Wilson
By Ed Rampell
You know we're living in strange times when the CIA appears to be a victim. The case of Joseph Wilson proves that, in the Bush administration, no good deed goes unpunished. In February 2002, the CIA – under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney – dispatched the ex-diplomat with African expertise to Niger to examine allegations that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium for a nuclear program. Wilson reported the charges were bogus. That didn't stop President Bush from repeating similar claims a year later in his State of the Union address. On July 6, Wilson published his side of what Condoleezza Rice derided as just “16 words” in The New York Times. Then, on July 14, conservative columnist Robert Novak blew the cover of Wilson's wife, calling her “an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate.” According to 1982's Intelligence Identities Protection Act, anyone revealing the names of covert agents can be fined $50,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 10 years. Vietnam-era über-leaker Daniel Ellsberg of “Pentagon Papers” fame told CityBeat: “Bush lies about Iraq are like the lies about Vietnam.”
CityBeat: How was outing your wife intended to embarrass you?
Ambassador Joe Wilson: Well, I've always assumed that what they intended to achieve by outing my wife's name was to discourage others from coming forward. There was not really very much they could do to me. After all, I had said my piece.
What are they trying to infer by alleging you and your wife, being in the CIA, might have been conspiring?
I have said repeatedly that the decision was made to ask me if I'd clear my schedule to go [to Niger] at a meeting at which my wife was not present. She was not in the chain of command, or in any other way part of that decision-making process. The two uncontested facts in this are the 16 words that should never have been in the State of the Union address, and, in fact, they would not have been in the State of the Union address, if the president had taken heed of not just my report, but two other reports prepared at the same time as mine, all of which said, “Boy, there's nothing to this story.”
They're trying to change the subject?
Of course they are. And the second uncontested fact is, somebody provided the name of a national security asset to the press – my wife. Somebody decided the protection of their political agenda was more important than U.S. national security.
How high up in the chain of command does the leak go?
The actual leak probably took place somewhere at that nexus between national security and politics. That puts it very high up in the White House or National Security Council.
Any particular figures you suspect?
We now know from The Washington Post there's two senior administration officials who called six reporters. Those were the leaks that may have been criminal. I have no idea who did that.
Is one of those reporters Robert Novak?
I don't know. Novak's story changes every time he opens his mouth.
Do you think this vicious attack on you and your wife is one-of-a-kind, or is there – like with Nixon – a broader, anti-opposition “enemies list” being carried out by the Bush administration?
No, I actually think what's happened here is different. This is much more serious – this administration fundamentally misstated material facts in the run-up to war. To put it quite bluntly, the administration had made a political decision, and then it selectively used bits of information – irrespective of whether they could be verified – not because they were the truth, but because they happened to fit the political decision they'd already taken. Trying to discredit me, by saying they basically lied on this subject, they're trying to keep others from coming forward and pointing out other places where they misstated the facts.
You diplomatically use the word “misstated.” Do you think this was deliberate lying?
Obviously, there could have been a systems failure. Or, increasingly, I'm led to believe they just simply selectively used information. It's inconceivable to me that the National Security Adviser [Rice] would just simply forget about memoranda she had in her files relating to issues so integral to her function, such as nuclear programs in the hands of rogue states. There's lots they have to answer to.
What should Bush do?
I'm actually frankly appalled that Mr. Bush has appeared to be so nonchalant about this. This is not just the leaking of classified information, but leaking of a national security asset. People's lives might actually be at stake as a consequence of this. The president sends all the wrong signals when he says we may never find the leaker. Are clandestine CIA operatives safer knowing there's somebody in the White House who might have leaked? I think the president has to be much more aggressive in ferreting out who might have committed this crime.
The Bush administration launched a dirty trick against you. Do you think the Bush campaign will launch dirty tricks against political opponents in election 2004?
Yeah, they certainly did against John McCain in the South Carolina primary. They ran a sub rosa campaign accusing his wife of being a drug addict, and his adopted children of not being white. These are really nasty guys. Rove, whether or not he leaked the name of my wife or authorized the leak, nonetheless pushed the story for a week after the leak came out. Even in a tough town like Washington, the idea of dragging somebody's family member into the debate, because you have a dispute with the husband, is just unprecedented. I frankly think Rove ought to be fired for having violated the president's own campaign promise of restoring dignity and honor to the White House.
Have you ever leaked?
No.
In terms of the big picture, are we seeing faction fights going on in the ruling circles?
It's absolutely clear. Senior Republicans as esteemed as Sen. Dick Lugar called on the president to get control of his government. He reminded the president just last week that the president is above the vice president and the secretaries. It's not at all clear that's the case. There's just open warfare between the Pentagon and the White House and the CIA, and between the Pentagon and State Department, as well. Not to mention the fact that policies being pursued by this administration are really the antithesis of those espoused by the president when he was a candidate. They're not sound policies – they represent the narrowest fanatical extremist faction of the Republican Party.
Daniel Ellsberg exposed administration lies about Vietnam. Do you think we're experiencing similar lies about Iraq?
It's very clear we made this war for reasons far different from what Americans were told.Published: 11/20/2003
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
