Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FR ALERT: 2002 Official Bio of Joseph Wilson mentions his wife
Middle East Institute ^ | 9/30/03

Posted on 09/30/2003 8:57:16 AM PDT by Wolfstar

Following is the official biograph of Amb. Joseph Wilson, copyrighted by The Middle East Institution in 2002. Note that his wife's maiden name is given, although no mention is made of her occupation. Because the bio is copyrighted, the following is an exerpt. Please click the link above to read the entire bio if interested:

[BEGIN BIO EXERPT]

Ambassador Wilson is CEO of JCWilson International Ventures, Corp., a firm specializing in Strategic Management and International Business Development.

Ambassador Wilson served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council from June 1997 until July 1998. In that capacity he was responsible for the coordination of U.S. policy to the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. He was one of the principal architects of President Clinton’s historic trip to Africa in March 1998.

Ambassador Wilson was the Political Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces, Europe, 1995-1997. He served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Gabonese Republic and to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe from 1992 to 1995. From 1988 to 1991, Ambassador Wilson served in Baghdad, Iraq as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy. During “Desert Shield” he was the acting Ambassador and was responsible for the negotiations that resulted in the release of several hundred American hostages. He was the last official American to meet with Saddam Hussein before the launching of “Desert Storm.”

[SNIP]

In 1985-1986, he served in the offices of Senator Albert Gore and the House Majority Whip, Representative Thomas Foley, as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow.

[SNIP]

Ambassador Wilson was raised in California and graduated from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1972.

[SNIP]

He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.

[END EXERPT]

Please CLICK HERE for info on the Middle East Institute.<.b> Note that a link to a website for Wilson's own company does not come up on a Google search.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: democrats; josephwilson; karlrove; presidentbush; robertnovak; smear; valerieplame
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: lugsoul
I see that you excerpted only the sections of today's Novak article to suit your purpose. Since you want to parse things to fit your purpose, I have posted the entire column below for easy reference. I don't appreciate you calling me a liar, because I am discussing the known facts and offering my take...just as you are. I have been very civil in my discussions. Further, I didn't say that you were attacking the President. I said that you were "buying the liberal democrat party line of attacking the President". There's a notable difference.

In addition, the known facts, at least up to this point, haven't supported your argument.

Novak said he was told the woman was an analyst, not a covert agent. That is a fact. That's what he was told by the CIA official. You can believe or not believe Mr. Novak, but he has no reason to lie. In this column today (below...in its entirety), he says he would have withheld the name if he knew it was that sensitive. She may have been or still was a covert agent, but Novak's source in the adminisation (which isn't necessarily the White House). Also, this situation doesn't seem to be, as you have opined, a partisan issue. Mr. Novak says that, "It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger." Again, you can believe Mr. Novak or not, that's up to you. The man has an established reputation for being an honest journalist that tells the story as he finds it.

I agree with you that if someone's life was in danger because of this revelation and it was an intentional act (which is a requirement of the law) that they should, indeed, be nailed to the wall, as you put it. Interestingly, the President has said the same...if that is the case, they will be dealt with. Considering his known stance on leaks, I don't imagine this person is going to get much leeway.

You don't need to shoot arrows or insults...yet. We will see with time. The investigation will show what it will show. You, or I, will get to look back on this thread and see if our "takes" were accurate or not. If you wish, you can tell me "I told you so". Until then, let's try to keep things civil. Disagree, not disagreeable, as I told you during our debate about Wesley Clark.

Do you think the CIA would ask for an investigation if someone revealed the name of a non-covert analyst who everyone knew worked for them?

You are mischarcterizing the importance of the referral. I have answered a similar comment about this idea, at length, on this thread. I have also made significant commentary in post #87 in the same thread.


October 1, 2003

WASHINGTON -- I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.

The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.

The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.

This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.
61 posted on 10/01/2003 8:19:30 AM PDT by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
"It is ok that you want to be here on FR to malign the President." - mattdono

"Further, I didn't say that you were attacking the President." - mattdono

Make up your mind. If you don't want to be called a liar, don't lie. Your parsing is worse than Novak's.

62 posted on 10/01/2003 9:05:36 AM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Your quote is irrelevant.
I was speaking to Wilson's public use of his wife's maiden (and professional)name.
63 posted on 10/01/2003 9:09:34 AM PDT by visualops (Two Wrongs don't make a right- they make the Democratic Ticket for 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
The point is that she was covered. Novak's unnamed source notwithstanding, the official position of the CIA is that her employment by them is classified. It doesn't really matter what she did for them - what matters is whether anyone was supposed to know, and it is UNDISPUTED that we were not supposed to know she worked for the CIA, and it is UNDISPUTED that a "senior administration official" told Novak that she worked for the CIA - and, btw, did it in the context of pushing a story line that is contradicted by the CIA - that Plame got the gig for her husband. If Democrats had done this, you'd be screaming for their heads.
64 posted on 10/01/2003 9:09:44 AM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: visualops
It is irrelevant to the blind. She was "covered." We don't know what her cover was - only that she was buried in another agency. What if "Valerie Plame" was presented as, say, a USAID official? Then some newspaper, based upon a White House source, identifies her as CIA? If you don't see how that is an issue, then you are willfully ignoring the facts. So what if he used her name, if she is being presented as something other than CIA?
65 posted on 10/01/2003 9:12:27 AM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Me parsing? Pot: meet kettle.

I said:
Look, it is ok for you to not the like and disagree the President. It is ok that you want to be here on FR to malign the President. However, it is not ok for you to continually accuse everyone of spinning and make outlandish and totally unsupported statements.

I am affirming your right to disagree with the President. I am affirming your right to even malign the President. I disagree with your tactic of accusing others of spinning while you seem to be spinning yourself (e.g., using only parts of Novak's statements and parts of the White House Counsel statements).

I then said:
I don't mind the debate with you. We have done this before. However, your debate tactic of accusing others of spin, buying the liberal democrat party line of attacking the President, and not offering SOURCED evidence to support your claims is getting a little old.

I was commenting that your tactics --accusing others of spinning, buying into the liberal attack, and not providing sources for your assertions-- were getting old.

<ignore>

66 posted on 10/01/2003 9:16:25 AM PDT by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Bookmark bump.
67 posted on 10/01/2003 9:18:42 AM PDT by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
Cite to one - one - comment on this issue where I "malign" the President. Or retract your statement. Or remain a liar.
68 posted on 10/01/2003 9:19:03 AM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Since you like to quote Novak:
How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

If you'll notice, at no point did I say any of this is a good thing. I cannot fathom why Novak mentioned her name if he was asked not to. However, there are many very fishy things about the whole affair (#1 being why send Wilson to Niger). It may well be the whole thing was inadvertent, but it smells like a setup to me.
69 posted on 10/01/2003 9:20:34 AM PDT by visualops (Two Wrongs don't make a right- they make the Democratic Ticket for 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
So why isn't the media covering such an enormous news story? It would be breaking all the way to Baghdad if it were a Republican.
70 posted on 10/01/2003 9:22:51 AM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
Thanks for that.
71 posted on 10/01/2003 9:33:39 AM PDT by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Well, I have refrained from insulting you and I don't mean this to come off as an insult, but I really don't think you are making any sense anymore.

You are totally missing the point. No crime has been committed, by anyone (in the administration or at CIA) unless it violates ALL the aspects of the law (Title 50, Chapter 15, Section 421). You have yet to address how what has happened NECESSARILY violates the law.

Rich Galen makes the 4 necessary aspects of violating the law very clearly in his column, The Sweet Mint Tea Pot Dome Scandal" (Galen's comments are in parantheses):

"According to the Washington Post, the following elements must exist:

If Democrats had done this, you'd be screaming for their heads.

You are assuming something about me that you have absolutely no knowledge of. You have no idea what I would do if this occurred under a democrat administration. I know that I would be looking for facts, as I am in this case. I want to know what happened. From Mr. Novak's statements on how this all came about (at from his perspective), it appears that at this point this is simply a political ruse.

We will have to wait to see what the investigation reveals.

I'm willing to do so.

Why are you so willing to throw the administration official under the bus, accusing them of not only revealing the name, but knowing that she specifically was a covert agent, when in fact, according to Mr. Novak, this person wasn't a politico? If you don't believe Mr. Novak, please state that clearly and explain why you don't belive him (give actual reasons).

72 posted on 10/01/2003 9:39:05 AM PDT by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I don't understand the problem with Wilson's wife being named on his bio, with her maiden name or not. Was Valerie Plame supposed to pretend she wasn't married? And I'm sure everyone who knew Joe Wilson was aware that he was married as well. If he bio said he was married to Valerie Plame, an undercover agent for the CIA, then he would have no right to complain. Why is the fact that his bio mentions her some kind of smoking gun? Thanks.
73 posted on 10/01/2003 9:46:10 AM PDT by halfdome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: halfdome
Wilson himself has gone around complaining that the big danger was that the Novak article used his wife's maiden name, like it was some big secret.

THAT is why we are pointing out it is on his bio. I hope this explains it to you. Please contact me if you have further questions.

74 posted on 10/01/2003 9:52:45 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Apperantly, you are having a selective reading problem. Let me breakdown the paragraph for you.

I said (again):
"I am affirming your right to disagree with the President. I am affirming your right to even malign the President."

Then, I said:
"I disagree with your tactic of accusing others of spinning while you seem to be spinning yourself (e.g., using only parts of Novak's statements and parts of the White House Counsel statements).

Do you not understand what reading in context is?

1) I say it is ok to disagee and, then a step further
2) I said that you can even malign him (should you choose to do so)
3) I said you were using a tactic of accusing others of spin while you are spinning yourself, and I cited two instances (below) where you had parsed out statements or mischaracterized something just to fit your opinion.

Here are the two example (within this thread):

Post #52 - One of your parsed statements about the White House statement
(You incorrectly paraphrase the White House Counsel memo...that's spin).

Post #16 - A post with your assertion about "Novak's unsourced assertion"
(Novak's assertion wasn't unsourced. It was a confidential source, not unsourced. Again, you didn't like that you don't know who the source was, so you discredit it...that's spin.)

I objected to your spinning, while accusing others of spinning. I never said that you had maligned the President.

75 posted on 10/01/2003 10:04:45 AM PDT by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Oh, I hadn't heard Wilson complain about the use of his wife's maiden name. It seems that people here are protesting the fact that Wilson mentioned he was married in his bio. Obviously, even undercover agents get married and live relatively normal lives. The investigation itself is about leaking the identity of an undercover agent. Isn't all this hoopla about her being named on his bio with her maiden name just a diversion from the real issue?
76 posted on 10/01/2003 10:12:43 AM PDT by halfdome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
"I never said that you had maligned the President."

"It is ok that you want to be here on FR to malign the President."

Your statements speak for themselves. I guess you meant that I "want to" be here to malign the President, but just haven't gotten around to it yet. As to how you would know that unless I had done so - that's as much a mystery as how a man letting people know his wife's name qualifies as "outing" her as CIA.

Did the White House statement refer to her as an undercover CIA employee? Yes. No spin there.

Did Novak say that the CIA officially told him she was "covered?" Yes. No spin there.

You are right - I said "unsourced." I guess I should have said "confidential source not corroborated by any other information whose statement dovetails nicely with Novak's personal interest in this issue." That's spin, just so you'll recognize it next time.

77 posted on 10/01/2003 10:38:38 AM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
LOL!
78 posted on 10/01/2003 10:54:29 AM PDT by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
Why don't you try to spin away your original statement, instead of relying on your attempt to explain your original statement? Oh, that's right. You can't. So you try misdirection. I guess you can recognize spin, after all - when you want to.

A 5-year-old can see that your initial response to me was to cast my post as an attempt to smear the President. You can run away from it all you want, but it is plain as day.

79 posted on 10/01/2003 10:55:56 AM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
The reply of one who has no reply.
80 posted on 10/01/2003 10:56:21 AM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson