Former ambassador speaks on Iraq, CIA leak investigation (Calls Bob Novak an ***hole and a jerk..)

A fast-talking, terse former negotiator, Joseph Wilson sat straight in his chair, offering no sign of fatigue from months of questioning and what he called "tawdry political tricks.

Asked about the same topic he has entertained for months - the unveiling of his wife's once-covert spy status by syndicated columnist Robert Novak - he gave a scowl as if to rev his rhetorical engine and spit an answer with lightning pace.

"What this is all about is the 16 words in the [2003] State of the Union Address, but the lackeys in the administration have managed to divert the attention from those 16 words and onto my family," he said, taking no breaths over the course of a minute. "The real issue is the level of threat we faced from Iraq at the time we went to war. I would prefer to be in that debate, seeing as how I have something to offer. Unfortunately, most people want to know what it's like to be Valerie Plame's husband - which I'm also happy to talk about."

In a talk sponsored by the Northeastern College Democrats at Blackman Auditorium Nov. 21, Wilson laid out the story of how he had gone from being a relatively anonymous state department official to "Valerie Plame's husband," sparing few from potent verbal attacks along the way.

Over 90 minutes, the rhetorical engine never slowed down. He was able to provide the audience with most of his career history, his position on both Iraq wars, a full account of the trip to Niger he called the reason for his character assassination and, as a "side issue," his reaction to the outing of his wife's identity as a spy with the CIA.

Wilson, a former ambassador to several African nations and to Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf War, described his position on the current Iraq War as a complete "180" from what he called his "hawkish" position in 1991.

"It was clear to me in 2002 that there was a group of people advocating for war who didn't understand what would happen if we invaded [Iraq]," he said. "Those of us who had some experience could see that the risks far outweighed the positives."

He said his experience meeting with Saddam Hussein just before the United Nations attacked Iraqi forces invading Kuwait in 1991 and helping spur democracy in Niger helped him come to the conclusion democracy was too difficult a road to pursue in Iraq.

"To me, it looked like regime change for the sake of regime change. It was a much harder road than [the Bush administration] thought it would be," he said. "Was there anyone who knew better than me? Probably not."

He added he received support for this view from former President George H.W. Bush and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.

After he began to publicize his views, he said other pro-war policy makers engaged in character denigration, setting the backdrop by which he claimed his wife's identity was revealed. He said he was accused of being racist, among other charges, during the debate.

He also described the trip to Niger, in which he had found no evidence of the uranium sales President Bush accused Iraq of attempting to acquire for nuclear weapons. The trip was the topic of an op-ed he wrote in the New York Times discrediting Bush's speech, and led to the revelation of his wife's identity, Wilson said.

"I did what most citizens would do - I held my government to account," he said of the op-ed. "I looked at the industry, which I already knew very well, and I looked at other places where the uranium may have been concealed. There was nothing to allege that Iraq attempted to buy uranium. The documents provided to the U.S. were forgeries, and the story was spinning out of control."

Though he said it was a "side issue," Wilson did not hold back judgment regarding the outing of his wife's covert identity.

"My wife was the first American spy to have her identity compromised by the American government," he said.

"When I found out [about the unveiling], I was on the second floor of my house," he said. "If Bob Novak had been in the room, he wouldn't have been on the second floor for long."

Despite the theatrics, though, Wilson said there was a larger lesson from his ordeal.

"You will not keep this republic unless you are vigilant in its defense," he said. "Insist on debate, and insist that the debate be based on the facts."

That message resonated with MJ Paradiso, a freshman international business major in attendance.

"I was impressed not only with the way he spoke about his personal story, but also his broader message about standing up for what you think is right," he said.

Other students in attendance, though, were not as impressed. Middler English major Christopher Budnick said the event was a "waste of time," citing "skewed statistics."

"He led with a really interesting statistic, that Valerie Wilson-Plame was the first American spy to have her identity revealed by her own government," Budnick said. "It would be a bit more thrilling if she was, indeed, the first, but talking to a room full of college students can really invigorate you into saying what sounds good."

"What this is all about is the 16 words in the [2003] State of the Union Address"

Oh really???

Well, let's see now ...

prior to his interview in May 2003 with New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof (despite numerous opportunities), Joseph Wilson IV made none of the claims which for which he has now become notorious ~ no mention whatsoever about those infamous "16 words".

On Feb. 6, 2003 Wilson appeared on PBS’s Newshour along with Khidir Hamza, the former director of the Iraqi nuclear weapons development program and Amatzia Baram, a professor of Middle East history at the University of Haifa in Israel, and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Here is portion of that exchange:

JIM LEHRER: You agree Ambassador Wilson? From his (Sadaam’s) point of view, what’s the point of being there if you don’t have your weapons of mass destruction?

JOSEPH WILSON: Well, again I think he also sees them as necessary to defending himself against what he believes will be an American assault on his government and his life. There is no incentive for him even to give up a little bit of them.

JIM LEHRER: But, all three of you agree if anyone is sitting around expecting at the last minute Saddam Hussein is going to have some kind of revelation and pull back and say, okay, here are my weapons of mass destruction, let’s have no war, forget it, right?

JOSEPH WILSON: Yeah. I think the chances are pretty good you’ll get something of semblance of cooperation, but the core stuff we’ll have to go find it.

No ... no mention of them here ...

On February 28, 2003 in another PBS interview (Bill Moyers Talks with Joseph C. Wilson, IV) this exchange occured:

MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. I…

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

Nope ... no mention there either!!

During an April 3, 2003 online chat facilitated by the Washington Post Wilson failed to mention the 16 words ~ indeed during this chat this interesting exchange occurred:

“Boston, Mass.: Mr. Wilson

Thank you for taking our questions. What happens if we do not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Joseph C. Wilson: Whether we find them or not is now immaterial. The liberation is now the rationale. If we don’t find them, discussion about them will cease and we will focus on the other reasons the administration has articulated. If we do find them, world public opinion will only change on the margins.”

Again, no mention!!

In fact, in any number of additional appearances in the months between the President's Speech and his May 2003 NYT's interview, Wilson said not a single thing about "the 16 words"!

Additionally, at an Oct. 9, 2002, Middle East Council Policy Forum, Wilson stated:

"My feeling on this…. is that we really do need to do something against the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and I would concede to this administration the possibility that one of these days these weapons might move from the tight control of the Iraqi regime into the hands of organized terrorist groups who would, in fact, want to act against United States interests either abroad or in our homeland."

Wilson has no interest in the truth!

In fact, as the following excerpt from the Senate's Iraq Report clearly points out, Wilson is totally vested in lies!

Reference:

(you can click on the above to download a PDF file of this report)

Twenty Questions which the Media Ignores:

1. Who let Joe go to Niger without signing a confidentiality agreement?

2. Where are the receipts from this "pro bono" trip?

3. Why wasn't there a written report "signed by Joe" about his trip?

4. Who interviewed Joe after his trip and issued "the Tea Time report".

5. Was Valerie present at that interview?

6. Who at the CIA gave Joe permission to write his July 6th article?

7. Who "remembered" and "searched out" the memo that Powell got on July 7th while boarding the plane to Africa. (I believe the text itself is dated June 10, 2003.)

8. What reporters were on that flight?

9.Were the Dems afraid that Plamegate was about to blowup when Powell got that memo?

10. Who was Joe's friend who approached Novak on July 8th and why did this "stranger" even ask Novak about Joe??

11. Why did Joe call Novak on July 8th (finally reaching him on the 10th) instead of the CIA?

12. Why did Harlow (CIA) call Novak back the next day and say it wouldn't be prudent to use Valerie's name even though he had made no big deal of her status the day before? Did Novak consider it a threat? (I would).

13. Did the CIA pull the "perfect forgery" and "reclassify" Valerie after the July 7th memo got out?

14. Was Berger trying to get rid of references to Valerie? or add the S stamp to the memo when he first burgled on June 28 2003?

15. Berger and Wilson were BOTH dropped from the Kerry campaign within days of each other. Why Wilson? What's the connection?

16. Who took care of Joe's divorce from Jacqueline and marriage to Valerie Plame?...i.e., asset changes, insurance policy changes etc.. Was it Christopher Wolf?

17. Where are the Public Records of Joe's divorce and marriage to Valerie?

17. Who was at their wedding?

18. Some article noted that Valerie had to shift some assets when she was outed? Really?? Why??

19. DID COOPER DELIBERATELY CALL ROVE VIA THE WHITEHOUSE SWITCHBOARD" on July 11th which meant it would not be in Rove's log?

20. Did Cooper deliberately wait ONE DAY to call Libby, giving Rove enough time to note Cooper's call to upper staff members?

Summary: There are too many items that the media has "dropped in the basket".

Novak smelled a setup when Joe's friend approached him on the 8th and it was Joe himself that confirmed Novak's info with his "Leave my wife out of this". (Please note that there's no inkling of "Big Spy" in these words....It's a "mind your own business" statement.

Novak's still alive (thank God he avoided Marcy Park), has testified and was able to walk away. He has however, in a 2005 article said that what Harlow (CIA) has said in his testimony is not the truth.

In the end....My guess is that only a few knew that Valerie had been written up for BOTH Niger Trips. I have to believe that under the circumstances (no confidentiality form, "pro bono", no written report), Valerie ASSUMED she would not be written up and so did Joe.

I have to conclude that Valerie was a part of this simply because SHE, as Jane Bond, would have/should have stopped Joe from printing his July 6th article.....unless she wasn't really Jane Bond at all!! Gasp!!

The very statement that Joe used: "Leave my wife out of this" was the real secret. Valerie was an inside source who was likely feeding her hubby all kinds of "under the covers" information (people don't change). Neither of these two can keep a secret. They have no business being attached to the CIA in any way. Valerie's not a spy....she's a spud, aka a small potato!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.