Joseph C. Wilson

This page is for the diplomat. For others of that name see Joseph Wilson.

For more detail about the political scandal, see Plame affair.

File:Joseph Wilson.jpg

Wilson, on occasion of delivering President's Lecture, at Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, on October 17, 2005

Joseph Charles Wilson IV (born November 61949) is a retired diplomat of the United States Foreign Service, who was posted to African nations and Iraq during the George H. W. Bush administration. During the George W. Bush administration, after his retirement from foreign service, Wilson became known to the general public as a result of his controversial op-ed published in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, four months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq began. In the op-ed, entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa," Wilson documents his February 2002 trip investigating whether Iraq purchased or attempted to purchase yellowcake from Niger in the late 1990s and accuses the George W. Bush administration of "exaggerating the Iraqi threat" in order to justify war."

Shortly thereafter, columnist Robert Novak, while writing on the choice of Wilson for the Niger mission, disclosed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. In his column of July 14, 2003, Novak states: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. 'I will not answer any question about my wife,' Wilson told me."

After Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the case, Deputy Attorney General James Comey named Patrick J. Fitzgerald to the Office of the Special Counsel as a special prosecutor to determine who was involved in disclosing the identity of a CIA operative to various reporters in the spring of 2003. On 28 October 2005, this investigation, which is still open, resulted in criminal indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, charging him with five counts of alleged felonious misconduct impeding the investigation, including obstruction of justice (one count), making false statements to investigators (two counts), and perjury in testimony before a federal grand jury (two counts). Libby was convicted on March 6, 2007, on four of five counts.

In August 2006, after years of controversial speculation and an ongoing grand jury investigation, the general public learned from news reports and advance word of the book Hubris, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, that Novak's "primary source" of this information for his column of 14 July 2003 was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage. Since that public disclosure, Novak has disputed several details of Armitage's account made in the latter's subsequent media interviews.

While, unlike the public, Special Counsel Fitzgerald knew early in his investigation that Richard Armitage was Robert Novak's "primary source" of the leak of the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson, neither he nor his office has commented upon that development (yet) publicly. The Special Counsel investigation of criminal wrongdoing in the matter popularly called "Plamegate" appears to remain ongoing. On March 6, 2007, after the conviction of Lewis Libby on four of the five counts of the grand jury indictment in United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby, also known as "Scooter Libby", Joseph C. Wilson issued a public statement.

Education

Wilson is a 1971 graduate of the University of California, Santa Barbara (Wilson, Politics of Truth 32). According to Richard Leiby, in the Washington Post, Wilson once joked that he majored in "history, volleyball, and surfing," maintaining a "C" average and working as a carpenter for five years after graduation. He became more serious about his education, "won a graduate fellowship and studied public administration," and, having become fluent in French as a teenager, he entered the Foreign Service in 1976, as an administrative "cone" officer (far less glamourous than the political "cone" officers who undertake the sexier work in embassies), specializing in African affairs.

Diplomatic career

Wilson served in the U.S. Foreign Service from January 1976 through 1998, with postings in five different African nations between 1976 and 1988.

From 1988 to 1991, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. In the wake of Iraq's 1990 Invasion of Kuwait, he became the last American diplomat to meet with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, telling him in very clear terms to "get out of Kuwait". When Hussein sent a note to Wilson (along with other embassy heads in Baghdad) threatening to execute anyone sheltering foreigners in Iraq, Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by appearing at a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck, and declaring, "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own fucking rope."

Despite Hussein's threats, Wilson sheltered more than one hundred Americans at the embassy, and successfully evacuated several thousand people (Americans and other nationals) from the country. He was praised by President George H. W. Bush for his actions: "...when I arrived back in Washington on January 13, 1991, the very next day I was in the Oval Office ... The President introduced me to his War Cabinet as a true American hero."

Wilson next served for three years as U.S. ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe, and subsequently helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council during the administration of President Bill Clinton.

Diplomatic postings:

• 1976–1978: General Services Officer, Niamey, Niger
• 1978–1979: Administrative Office, Lomé, Togo
• 1979–1981: Administrative Officer, U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C.
• 1981–1982: Administrative Officer, Pretoria, South Africa
• 1982–1985: Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM), Bujumbura, Burundi
• 1985–1986: Congressional Fellow, offices of Senator Al Gore and Representative Tom Foley
• 1986–1988: DCM, Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo
• 1988–1991: DCM, Baghdad, Iraq
• 1992–1995: Ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe
• 1995–1997: Political Adviser to Commander in Chief U.S. Armed Forces, Europe EUCOM, Stuttgart, Germany
• 1997–1998: Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton and Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council, Washington, D.C.

(Source for all details of postings: "Diplomatic Career of Ambassador Joseph Wilson," The Politics of Truth, p.451)

Professional activities after retirement from foreign service

Wilson manages JC Wilson International Ventures Corporation, a consulting firm specializing in strategic management and international business development.

Honors

Public service awards

• Secretary of State Distinguished Service Award
• Department of State Superior Honor Award
• Department of State Meritorious Honor Award
• University of California, Santa Barbara Distinguished Alumnus Award
• American Foreign Service Association William R. Rivkin Award (1987)

Decorations

• Commander in the Order of the Equatorial Star (Government of Gabon)
• Admiral in the El Paso Navy (El Paso County Commissioners)

Other awards

• BuzzFlash Wings of Justice Award, shared with wife, Valerie Plame (2005)
• Ron Ridenhour Award for Truth-Telling (from the Fertel Foundation and The Nation Institute, Oct. 2003)

Personal life

Wilson was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut, to Joseph Charles Wilson III and Phyllis (Finnell) Wilson. He currently lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico[1], with his third wife, the former Valerie Elise Plame, and their two children, twins Trevor Rolph and Samantha Finnell Diana, born in 2000. He is also the father of another set of twins, also a boy and a girl, Sabrina Cecile and Joseph Charles, who were born in 1979, during his first marriage to his "college sweetheart," Susan Otchis, which ended amicably in the mid-80s, toward the end of his service in Burundi; they were divorced in 1986. For the next twelve years, Wilson was married to his second wife, Jacqueline, "a Frenchwoman who had been raised in Africa" (Wilson, The Politics of Truth 68-69). Wilson met Plame in 1997, while working for President Bill Clinton; they married in 1998, after his divorce from Jacqueline, which had been "delayed because I was never in one place long enough to complete the process," though he and she had already been living separate lives since the mid-90s (Wilson, Politics of Truth 242). Among his hobbies are golf, bicycling, and fitness. (See Who's Who biography).

Family and political background

Wilson grew up in a "proud Republican family" in which "there is a long tradition of politics and service to country" and for which "Politics was a staple around the table" (Politics of Truth 31). His mother's uncle James ("Sunny Jim") Rolph was mayor of San Francisco from 1912 to 1931, "the city's longest-serving mayor," and served as governor of California "until his death in office in 1934" (31). For his mother's brothers, as they told their new brother-in-law (who was to become Wilson's father), Barry Goldwater was "a bit liberal" (31). Military service was also a strong part of his family history: both his grandfathers had served in the two world wars, his paternal grandfather (the "Colonel") receiving both the British Distinguished Flying Cross and the French Croix de Guerre "for his exploits in World War I" (32), and his son, Wilson's father Joe, "was a Marine pilot in World War II and was among the last pilots to take off from the deck of the aircraft Franklin just before it was hit by two bombs dropped from a Japanese dive-bomber, one of which exploded amid planes waiting to take off," resulting in "the deaths of more than seven hundred American servicemen. . . . He never forgot how lucky he was to have survived––not to mention that my younger brother and I would never have been born" (31).

On his father's side, the Wilson's uncle is Pete Wilson (R), former United States Senator and Governor of California.

The Vietnam protests of the 1960s, when Wilson was a student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, galvanized him along with much of that generation and "pitted parents against kids in [his] family just as it did in many households around the country" (32).

For a year midway in his career as a diplomat (1985–1986), Wilson served as a Congressional Fellow in the offices of Senator Al Gore and Representative Tom Foley; his working for Democrats was simply a matter of "happenstance." Of the 2000 election he writes:

In retrospect, I was naïve in thinking that a mature democracy like ours would naturally embrace the rule of law and engage in polite discourse instead of the law of tooth and claw I had seen operate abroad. In this case, the shameless lust for power, and the genuine hatred among the right wing for Bill Clinton, just overwhelmed the Democrats. I was appalled by the gutter tactics of the out-of-state rabble that bullied public servants and intimidated them into stopping the recount of ballots in Miami-Dade County. I had railed against such conduct in flawed elections in Africa, and disliked it just as much in my own country.

Although I had voted for the candidate who ultimately lost the election, I assumed hopefully, and naïvely again, that once in office George W. Bush and his experienced team would curb the excesses of the extremists, and that the country would be in good hands. Valerie and I even attended a swank inauguration reception on Pennsylvania Avenue where we looked down on the president's parade route and celebrated with Bush supporters the peaceful transition of power that is the hallmark of our democracy.

In May 2002, "several months after [his] trip to Niger," Wilson writes, he "participated in the annual conference of the American Turkish Council," one of whose "keynote speakers was Richard Perle, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and one of the most virulent of the neoconservative war advocates. . . . In his speech at the conference, Perle spoke openly of a coming war with Iraq. His words, laden with the fire and brimstone of the true zealot, troubled me deeply. In a symposium that I cochaired the same afternoon with the former Turkish military commander, Cevik Bir, I voiced concerns. It was the first time in more than a decade that I'd spoken publicly about Iraq" (The Politics of Truth 291).

In 2003 Wilson began to support and formally endorsed John Kerry for president, donated $2,000 to his campaign, and served as an advisor to and speechwriter for the campaign in 2003 and 2004. He has made contributions to the campaigns of Democratic candidates, such as Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Congressman Charles B. Rangel of New York, and to Republican Congressman Ed Royce of California.

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson supported activist groups like Win Without War, a nonpartisan coalition of groups united in opposition to the Iraq War, has been quoted in the organization's press releases, and has been attacked by conservatives for such anti-war activism. Nevertheless, according to an article to which Scott Shane and Lynette Clemetson contributed, published in the New York Times: "Despite conservatives' efforts to portray him as a left-wing extremist, [Wilson] insisted he remained a centrist at heart. But after his tangle with the current administration, he admits 'it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Republican, even for dog catcher.'"

Wilson endorses Veterans for a Secure America (VSA).

On July 16, 2007 the Drudge Report reported that Wilson supports Hillary Clinton for President of the United States in the 2008 election.

Wilson's trip to Niger

In late February of 2002, Wilson was sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had a deal to buy enriched uranium yellowcake. Wilson met with the current Ambassador, Owens-Kirkpatrick, at the embassy, and was informed that she had already debunked that story. However, they agreed Wilson would interview dozens of officials who had been in the Niger government when the deal had supposedly taken place. Wilson ultimately concluded "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

The controversy surrounding Wilson began with President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, containing his now-infamous "16 words" in which he stated that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Documents unrelated to Wilson's trip and finding Iraq had made a yellowcake overture had been obtained by the U.S. Embassy in Rome on October 92002, and distributed throughout the U.S. intelligence community shortly thereafter, but not passed on to the IAEA until February 32003. Two months later, documents suggesting that Iraq had tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, were judged to be "obvious" forgeries by the IAEA.

It has been suggested that the documents that the IAEA judged to be forgeries were not the same documents on which the British based their original assessment. Two British Parliamentary reports confirm the original intelligence [2]. One of these reports, the Butler Report, suggests that the forged documents were distributed with the knowing goal of being discovered as obvious forgeries so as to discredit the intelligence. The IAEA released its report a month later, just weeks before the start of the Iraq war.

Main article: Plame affair

"What I Didn't Find in Africa," by Joseph C. Wilson IV

In the July 62003 issue of The New York Times, Wilson contributed an "Op-Ed" entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa," in which he accuses the Bush administration of "exaggerating the Iraqi threat" in order to justify war. In this account, often referred to later as his "New York Times 'Op-Ed,'" Wilson states the rationale for his trip as follows: "The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer" (italics added). Critics contend that in "What I Didn't Find in Africa" Wilson falsely claims to have been sent by the vice president personally; however, Wilson's text does not support that criticism. Supporters counter that in his rationale for his trip in "What I Didn't Find in Africa," as on other occasions in print and in media interviews, Wilson states only that he was sent by the CIA in response to questions asked by the "office" of the vice president, not personally by Vice President Cheney himself. In his July 6th 2003 Meet the Press interview with Andrea Mitchell, Mr. Wilson states:

The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.

George Tenet, the director of the CIA during Wilson's trip, has said that the administration was not directly briefed on Wilson's report "because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution (within the intelligence community), but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials." In his book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, Tenet writes, "This unremarkable report was disseminated, but because it produced no solid answers, there wasn't any urgency to brief its results to senior officials such as the vice president...As far as we could tell, the Wilson summary was never delivered to Cheney. In fact, I have no recollection myself of hearing about Wilson's trip at the time."

On Monday, 7 July 2003, the day after the publication of "What I Didn't Find in Africa," the Bush administration admitted "that accusations included in the president's State of the Union address have turned out to be inaccurate." In a press conference held in Africa, where he was then traveling with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, "fielded questions about the faulty intelligence" and concluded: "There was sufficient evidence floating around at that time that such a statement was not totally outrageous or not to be believed or not to be appropriately used. It's that once we used the statement, and after further analysis, and looking at other estimates we had, and other information that was coming in, it turned out that the basis upon which that statement was made didn't hold up, and we said so, and we've acknowledged it, and we've moved on."

Nevertheless, as Colin Powell suggested at the time –– referring to "the case I put down on the 5th of February [2003], for an hour and 20 minutes, roughly, on terrorism, on weapons of mass destruction, and on the human rights case, a short section at the end, we stand behind" –– the Bush administration still maintains that other intelligence that Iraq may have attempted to acquire uranium in Africa may have been correct. Many supporters of the theory point to the Butler Review, which found, without giving evidence of such a claim, that there was credible intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger in 1999, but not in 2002, and that there was even less certain intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Critics of the theory view the evidence relating to the Democratic Republic of Congo as suspect and point out that, while President Bush mentioned "Africa" in his State of the Union Address, in fielding questions in a "press gaggle" about the President's statement, also on 7 July 2003, press secretary Ari Fleischer affirmed explicitly that President Bush's claim that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from "Africa" derived specificially from information pertaining only to Niger and that the "the President did not have that information [about other African nations from the NIE] prior to his giving the State of the Union."

In addition, nuclear expert Norman Dombey has pointed out that the information relied upon by the Butler Review on the Niger issue was incomplete; on 25 July 2004, he notes: "The Butler report says the claim was credible because an Iraqi diplomat visited Niger in 1999, and almost three-quarters of Niger's exports were uranium. But this is irrelevant, since France controls Niger's uranium mines." Moreover, when asked by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss the conclusions of British intelligence, Deputy Director of Intelligence John McLaughlin stated, "The one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We've looked at those reports and we don't think they are very credible. It doesn't diminish our conviction that he's going for nuclear weapons, but I think they reached a little bit on that one point."

Mr. Wilson's verbal report to the CIA seemed to confirm Iraq's desire to open negotiations with Niger, possibly involving uranium. The July 11, 2003 CIA Statement by Director George Tenet states:

The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.

When asked to respond this on October 5, 2003 on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, Mr Wilson said:

An intermediary came to this official, and said, “I want you to meet with these guys. They’re interested in talking about expanding commercial relations.” The person who talked to me said, “Red flags went up immediately, I thought of U.N. Security Council sanctions, I thought of all sorts of other reasons why we didn’t want to have any meeting. I declined the meeting,” and this was out of the country, on the margins of an OIC meeting. So it was a meeting that did not take place. And at one point during the conversation, this official kind of looked up in the sky and plumbing his conscience, looked back and said, “You know, maybe they might have wanted to talk about uranium.”

To the CIA personnel debriefing Mr. Wilson (he provided no written report from his eight day mission), this represented confirmation which was at odds with Mr. Wilson's title, "What I didn't find in Africa".

See also: Butler Review, September Dossier, and Plame affair timeline

The Politics of Truth, by Ambassador Joseph Wilson

The Politics of Truth, by Ambassador Joseph Wilson

In 2004 Wilson published a book entitled The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2004; paperback ed., 2005). Both a political and personal memoir, Wilson's autobiographical account of over two decades of his life in foreign service includes detailed descriptions of his extensive diplomatic-career experiences, his first marriage and family, briefer references to his second marriage, his meeting of Valerie Plame, their courtship and marriage, and a detailed narrative of the events leading to his decision to go public with his criticisms of the Bush administration and its aftermath, extended in appendices of chronological "timelines" and "Newspaper Commentaries Published by Ambassador Joseph Wilson Before and After the United States Invasion of Iraq in 2003" (461-86); the book includes a "Bibliography" (487-96) and a detailed index (497-517). The 2005 paperback edition is "Updated with a New Preface by the Author ["Anatomy of a Smear" (li-lxix)] and an Investigative Report on the Niger Documents Affair by Russ Hoyle" ("The Niger Affair: The Investigation That Won't Go Away" (xiii-xlix)]. Wilson's dedications read:

To my wife Valerie, I cannot begin to tell you how sorry I am for what your government has done to you. If I could give you back your anonymity I would do so in a minute.

To Sabrina and Joe, who experienced so many of these adventures with me.

To Trevor and Samantha, in the hopes that by reading this you will gain some insight into events that took place before you could understand their significance.

To Dad and Mom, who will never read this but who, as Marines, did their best to teach me the meaning of duty to country.

The epigraph is from The Divine Comedy, by Dante Alighieri:

The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

BuzzFlash award and interview

On 3 August 2005, Joseph C. Wilson, along with his wife, Valerie Plame, received a "Wings of Justice Award" from BuzzFlash.

In the third interview with former Ambassador Wilson conducted by BuzzFlash, on 7 September 2006, they have the following exchange:

BuzzFlash: Reporters and pundits have used various terms — Plamegate and Wilsongate, among others — when talking about this administration's treatment of you and your wife, Valerie Plame. BuzzFlash and BuzzFlash readers see it as symbolic of the White House's willingness to betray the national security interests of the United States by seeking vengeance on individuals. We'd like to ask you for an update, on three different levels, to the degree that you can discuss the facts with us despite lawsuits and ongoing investigations.

First of all, there’s a lot of speculation about the Counsel for the Department of Justice and the status of his investigation. Is Patrick Fitzgerald done with his indictments, or is it possible that there will be further indictments?

Joseph Wilson: Let me tell you just as an overview of what this case has been about — the other day, a friend of mine informed me that he had been in touch with a career Justice Department prosecutor who said that what was done in compromising Valerie’s identity was treason. I think that’s what it is. Betrayal of the national security of my country is an act of treason.

It’s entirely possible that Mr. Fitzgerald will penetrate the veil to get there. He made very clear in his press conference that he was unable to determine certain things about the underlying crimes because he alleged there had been obstruction of justice. I haven’t talked to Mr. Fitzgerald in a long time. I don’t really know what the status of the investigation is. But I have full confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald. He’s proven himself in this and other cases to be a valiant prosecutor, and not to be intimidated by the politically powerful. I fully expect that he can get to the bottom of it. But whatever crime was committed, was committed against the country, not against Joe Wilson, even though Valerie's and my name are associated with it.

BuzzFlash: From a technical standpoint, there’s confusion in the press, as there often is. Is he still continuing an investigation with a second grand jury?

Joseph Wilson: I have no idea where it stands. Mr. Fitzgerald only talks to me when he has questions to ask of me. He doesn’t share with me the yields of the investigation.

I will say this about the apparent confusion in the press: Where they’ve asked the question, they might well get an answer. The fact that they don’t ask indicates that they’re not terribly interested. If the press will continue to serve as apologists for an administration that has done this, then they are either willfully ignorant or complicit in this campaign to destroy the national security of the country, and to use political and official positions to seek personal revenge on people who they deem to be critics.

Statement by the Wilsons in response to verdict in Libby trial

Main article: United States v. Libby

In response to the verdict on March 6, 2007, finding Lewis Libby guilty of four of the five charges in the Fitzgerald grand jury indictment against him, the Wilsons issued a statement in a press release posted on the website of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. It begins:

First, Valerie and Joseph Wilson would like to express their appreciation to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and the entire team of federal prosecutors for their professionalism and hard work. Their prosecution of a senior White House official illustrates that we are a nation of laws and that no man is above the law. The Wilsons respect the jury’s verdict and thank the jurors for their service. The entire Wilson team is pleased by today’s verdict and believes that justice has been served in this case.

Their statement continues by presenting Joseph Wilson's and Valerie E. Wilson's ongoing commitment to pursuing their civil suit against Libby and the other defendants charged in it:

The Wilsons will continue to pursue the civil case against Vice President Cheney, Mr. Libby, Mr. Rove and Mr. Armitage because it hinges on additional and different facts from those underlying the criminal case. The criminal trial was about whether or not Mr. Libby obstructed justice and committed perjury by lying to FBI agents and the grand jury about the fact that he had disclosed to reporters that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA. The civil suit, on the other hand, hinges on whether or not the defendants violated the constitutional rights of Valerie and Joe Wilson by making those disclosures in a concerted effort to retaliate against Joe Wilson for revealing the falsity of the president’s rationale for the Iraq war.

Their perspective on the matters still before the courts is as follows:

Disturbing facts emerged from the criminal trial that are highly relevant to the civil case. For example, the American public learned details of how Vice President Cheney orchestrated the concerted White House effort to discredit and retaliate against Joe Wilson. Towards that end, the vice president enlisted the aid of other senior administration officials including former press secretary Ari Fleischer, vice presidential assistant Cathie Martin and presidential advisor Karl Rove. Testimony in the criminal case also confirmed that Mr. Libby spoke to numerous reporters in an effort to persuade at least one of them to publicly reveal Mrs. Wilson’s covert status.

The statement concludes by quoting Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and counsel to the Wilsons: "'The civil case may provide the American public with its only opportunity to hear directly from Vice President Cheney, Mr. Libby, Mr. Rove and Mr. Armitage about what really took place behind the scenes after Joe Wilson exposed the truth about the administration’s justification for the Iraq war.'"

Reaction to Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence

Main article: United States v. Libby § Presidential commutation of Libby's prison sentence

Following President George W. Bush's July 2, 2007 commutation of Lewis Libby's prison sentence, Wilson was interviewed on Democracy Now!. Asked for his reaction to the commutation, he said:

I believe that the President is corrupt to the core, and his administration is corrupt from top to bottom. I think, in doing this, he has actively subverted the rule of law and the system of justice in our country, which has undergirded our democracy for 231 years. It's a disgrace. I believe that it casts a pall over him and his office and begs a question of what was the quid pro quo and whether or not he is now an active participant in an ongoing obstruction of justice in the cover up of the lies that they used to justify our invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq in the first place.

...the special prosecutor in this case, representing the US government, said that Libby had blatantly and repeatedly lied, and as a consequence, sand had been thrown in the eyes of the umpire, by which he meant he was unable to get to the facts surrounding the underlying crime, the betrayal of the national security of our country. And Mr. Fitzgerald said that there remained a cloud over the Vice President and over his office.

Now, with his sentence commuted, Mr. Libby now no longer has any incentive whatsoever to begin to tell the truth to the special prosecutor, to wipe that sand from the umpire’s eyes, and to either lift that cloud over the Vice President or let it rain on him. So this is much more than just a commutation of Mr. Libby's sentence. This is a cover-up of the Vice President's role in this matter and quite possibly the role of the President and/or some of his senior White House advisers.

Further information: Lewis Libby § Presidential commutation of prison sentence, and Lewis Libby § The Wilsons' civil suit

The Senate Intelligence Committee Report

See also: Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (39-44) presents the following as established facts, some of which are still controversial:

• The U.S. embassy in Niger issued a cable reporting that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal warranted a hard look.
• Valerie Plame suggested her husband travel to Niger to look into it.
• A WINPAC analyst sent an email saying the results "from this source" will be suspect and not believable, but the CIA decided to send Wilson anyway.
• In February 2002, Wilson arrived in Niger and met with former officials of Niger. [Wilson states in "What I Didn't Find in Africa" that this meeting was arranged by the current Ambassador, who had already interviewed them.]
• On March 1, 2002 the CIA published an intelligence assessment, "Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely," unrelated to Wilson's trip. It is not known if this assessment was provided to Vice President Cheney.
• On March 8, 2002 an intelligence report based on Wilson's trip was disseminated. The report indicated the former Prime Minister of Niger had said no contracts to sell uranium to Iraq were signed during his tenure. An Iraqi delegation had approached him in June 1999, however, to discuss "expanding commercial relations." The Prime Minister took this overture to refer to uranium yellowcake sales. The Prime Minister did not pursue the matter because of the UN sanctions on Iraq then in effect.
• The Senate Intelligence Committee Report finds that Wilson's description of his findings differ from some parts of the DO intelligence report "in some respects":
  • Wilson told the Senate his findings refuted the notion Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.
  • The intelligence report written from Wilson's findings, but not by Wilson, confirms that in 1999 Iraq had approached Niger for increased trade, which was interpreted by the former Prime Minister as suggesting that Iraq was seeking uranium.
• The Senate Intelligence Committee Report also finds that Wilson's description of the information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA's account.
  • Wilson claimed that the CIA told him about documents pertaining to an alleged uranium sale to Iraq.
  • The CIA reports officer denied giving Wilson any such information and noted there were no such "documents" circulating at the time (44-45).

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ultimately concludes in its Iraq Report (issued on July 7 and updated on July 9, 2004):

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."

Overall, however, the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report observes:

Problems with the Intelligence Community's HUMINT efforts were also evident in the Intelligence Community's handling of Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium from Niger. The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access enjoyed by the spouse of a CIA employee traveling to Niger. The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortunate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available."

The "Niger Conclusions" relating to Wilson's op-ed essay about President Bush's "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address are Conclusions 12-26.

Selected press commentary and Wilson's responses

Susan Schmidt opens her article on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report in the Washington Post by stating that it challenges some of the statements made by Wilson and suggests that Wilson's wife was more involved in his selection for the mission than Wilson has repeatedly asserted:

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly."

This introduction does not, however, take into account wide differences of interpretation relating to Wilson's comments on the matter both in print and in media interviews that she reports throughout the body of her article. Schmidt highlights the following:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, according to the report, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson.

But high-ranking CIA officials told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that they disputed the claim that Plame was involved in the final decision to send Wilson and indicated that the operations official who made it was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen. As reported by Knut Royce and Tim Phelps in Newsday on 22 July 2003:

A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can’t figure out what it could be." "We paid his (Wilson’s) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you’d have to pay big bucks to go there," the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses.

Wilson states in "Sixteen Words," the first chapter of The Politics of Truth:

Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter. Though she worked on weapons of mass destruction issues, she was not at the meeting I attended where the subject of Niger's uranium was discussed, when the possibility of my actually traveling to the country was broached. She definitely had not proposed that I make this trip. (5)

Schmidt renders the quotation from Wilson in a misleading way, however, omitting any sign of her editorial ellipsis:

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year [The Politics of Truth (2004)]. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday [July 9, 2003], saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo [of Feb. 12, 2002 sent to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the (Nigerian) PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity"], he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

Wilson's responses to this article, published in The Politics of Truth, point out significant errors of fact and interpretation in Susan Schmidt's account of the Committee's report:

Her article was replete with factual errors that could have been avoided had she bothered to read the text of the report or even done some basic research, such as looking up the CIA statement made the previous year in the Newsday article about Valerie's lack of involvement in the trip. But she did not. Indeed, her reporting was so sloppy that from the lead sentence she conflated what the three Republican senators––and not even a majority of their own party's representation on the committee––asserted with what the actual report concluded. She even confused Iraq with Iran, a significant error of fact. She also quoted a phrase from this book that Valerie "had nothing to do with the matter" without the qualifying phrase in the beginning of the sentence: "other than serve as a conduit." Schmidt asserted that my report, rather than debunking intelligence about the purported uranium sales to Iraq, had bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. She went further, noting that "contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

Both of these assertions were patently false, and even a cursory reading of the body of the report dedicated to the Niger case would have borne that out. (lix)

Wilson's reply particularly to Senators Roberts, Bond, and Hatch was published online as "Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate": "The Former Ambassador Responds to Allegations by Republican Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report Challenging His Credibility" on AlterNet on July 19, 2004.

In a "statement [submitted] to the Congress," former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson further refutes the "allegation" cited most often in the media:

Another false claim is that Valerie sent her husband on the mission to Niger. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report issued in July 2004, it is clear that the Vice President himself requested that the CIA provide its views on a Defense Intelligence Agency report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. The Vice President's request was relayed through the CIA bureaucracy to the Director of the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA. Valerie worked for a branch in that Division. The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by Republican partisans as "proof" that Valerie sent her husband to Niger because she sent a memo describing her husband's qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief. Several news personalities, such as Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly, continue to repeat this nonsense as proof. What the Senate Intelligence Committee does not include in the report is the fact that Valerie's boss had asked her to write a memo outlining her husband's qualifications for the job. She did what any good employee does; she gave her boss what he asked for.

Accounts of Valerie Plame's involvement in her husband's selection appear to differ markedly, but the main difference may be semantic. Wilson claims that his wife simply contacted him on the agency's behalf at its behest, responded to her supervisor's request for information, and escorted her husband to the meeting before leaving it, prior to any decision being made; whereas some press accounts whose reliability does appear at times indeed questionable claim that Plame may also have "recommended" her husband by virtue of her writing a summary of his qualifications when he was already being considered. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [[[counter-proliferation|Counterproliferation]] Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip" (italics added). Nevertheless, as Schmidt clearly states, "Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger," and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report in no way contradicts or even counters that assertion (italics added).

Schmidt states in her July 10, 2003 article in the Washington Post: that the Senate Intelligence Committee Report points to inconsistencies in Wilson's retrospective accounts of his trip to Niger (which Wilson disputes):

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.

Nevertheless, Schmidt concludes:

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."

Initial dispute between Wilson and the White House

Some pertinent contexts

President George W. Bush gave a major speech on 7 October 2002, claiming: "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." According to a report published in the Washington Post, earlier drafts of that speech included the specific claim that uranium was sought from Niger, but the CIA successfully requested that President Bush's speechwriters remove it.

President Bush included the "16 words" in his January 2003 State of the Union address, claiming that Iraq had sought uranium from a country in Africa, even after the CIA had expressed reservations in October 2002. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002 states that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."

In 2002, CIA analysts had testified before Congress that, prior to the Iraq invasion, they believed that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge for nuclear enrichment, as claimed by the Bush administration and its supporters and as reported initially in the mainstream media.

On 11 December 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported that French intelligence had warned the Bush Administration repeatedly that there was no evidence that Saddam sought uranium from Niger: "The French conclusions were reached after extensive on-the-ground investigations in Niger and other former French colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies, said Alain Chouet, the French former official. He said the French investigate at the CIA's request. . . . [T]he essence of Chouet's account — that the French repeatedly investigated the Niger claim, found no evidence to support it, and warned the CIA — was extensively corroborated by [a] former CIA official and a current French government official, who both spoke on condition of anonymity."

David Corn reveals in The Nation that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA to help determine the use of aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq.

See also: Joseph C. Wilson § Support_for_Wilson

Selected additional press commentary

An editorial published in the Wall Street Journal asserts that Wilson had lied about what he reports in "What I Didn't Find in Africa": "In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission," concluding: "The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know."

A year later, another editorial headlined "A Good Leak" in the Washington Post claims that "Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth and that, in fact, his report [to the CIA] supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium." "A Good Leak" also claims that "President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons."

But the New York Times directly counters claims made in the Washington Post editorial in its own editorial headlined "A Bad Leak":

President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist. This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record.

Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later.

And this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress.

Another editorial in the Wall Street Journal gives excerpts from the British and American "investigations" pertaining to Wilson's trip to Niger, finding justification for his perspective presented in "What I Didn't Find in Africa," along with some qualifications and distinctions between some evidence of Iraq's attempts at acquiring uranium yellowcake from African nations such as Niger and its actual lack of following through on such attempts.

In response to repeating selected portions from the addenda of its Republican members to the conclusions of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee Report so widely cited without question by many in the media, Wilson and others have sharply disputed those claims and refuted those attempting to "discredit" him.

Moreover, a Washington Post news report by Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman, which appears in the same issue as "A Good Leak," indicates that the White House's disclosure of certain portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) may have misrepresented to reporters the actual level of confidence of the intelligence community in the proposition that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium. Linzer and Gellman state that "At Cheney's instruction, Libby testified, he [Libby] told [reporter] Miller that the uranium story was a "key judgment" of the intelligence estimate, a term of art indicating there was consensus on a question of central importance. In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments, which were identified by a headline and bold type and set out in bullet form in the first five pages of the 96-page document." This report further notes that, according to the NIE, "U.S. intelligence did not know the status of Iraq's procurement efforts, 'cannot confirm' any success and had 'inconclusive' evidence about Iraq's domestic uranium operations. . . . The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim 'highly dubious.' For those reasons, the uranium story was relegated to a brief inside passage in the October estimate" (italics added).

A few days later Dafna Linzer wrote another article in the Washington Post describing a letter from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to Judge Reggie B. Walton correcting a sentence appearing in his recent filings describing Scooter Libby's testimony regarding his conversation with Judith Miller about the October 2002 NIE. Purportedly, that sentence states erroneously that Libby "was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." Instead, the sentence should have conveyed that Libby was to tell Miller some of the key judgments of the NIE "and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

Replying to complaints from various readers, the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, notes that Dafna Linzer's and Barton Gellman's reporting relied on Fitzgerald's representations in his legal filings, that the editorial was written before the front-page report and that although the writer had not read the report, it would not have changed his mind. She also notes that the basis for the editorial's claim that Wilson's report "supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium" was the fact that there was a meeting between Iraqi and Nigerien trade officials "because that's mostly what Niger has to export." She also observes that the editorial had inconsistently dealt with the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which noted that "the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research analysts believed that [Wilson's] report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." She concludes:

It would have been helpful if the editorial had put statements about Wilson in more context –– especially the controversy over his trip and what he said. It also could have used a sentence to say what is known in every newsroom: Leaks are good for journalism.

On the Gellman/Linzer story, it would have been good to quote more from the WMD commission's and Iraq Survey Group's reports and specifically their conclusions.

Both pieces demonstrate the high wall between editorial and news. While editorial writers read reporters' stories, Executive Editor Len Downie doesn't regularly read editorials (although he read this one) lest it make a mark on how he runs the news pages.

Some readers think it's a scandal when two parts of the newspaper appear to be in conflict with each other, but it's not that unusual that reporting –– particularly in news and editorial –– will depend on different sources. It happened again last week when an editorial and a story gave different estimates for how long it might take Iran to build a nuclear bomb.

Reporting about national security and intelligence gathering is always fraught with fraught [sic]; it is a subject I will write about again.

Related controversies directly pertaining to Wilson

Claims made by retired generals Vallely and McInerney

On 3 November 2005, retired U.S. Army Major General Paul E. Vallely appeared on the John Batchelor Show on ABC Radio, claiming, according to Art Moore, in an "exclusive" posting on WorldNetDaily, that

the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist [Robert Novak]. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts. . . . Vallely said, citing CIA colleagues, that in addition to his conversations with Wilson, the ambassador was proud to introduce Plame at cocktail parties and other social events around Washington as his CIA wife.

"That was pretty common knowledge," he said. "She's been out there on the Washington scene many years."

If Plame were a covert agent at the time, Vallely said, "he would not have paraded her around as he did."

Vallely does not take into account the common modus operandi for "covert operatives" in espionage and counter-espionage: "Hide in plain sight." The concept of a "cover" is that one can "parade" around in public (as the Wilsons did to celebrate Bush's election on Pennsylvania Avenue or when they attended other public events and private parties or engaged in normal family activities with their children).

Such "secret agents" might even be photographed for a feature in Vanity Fair, although the Wilsons' did so for an issue published only after Plame was outed (Jan. 2004) about the very subject of her outing. Such openness is designed to throw people off one's trail so that John Q. Public (and one's rivals or enemies) would never suspect that one is actually working in intelligence or counter-intelligence.

File:Valerie and Joseph Wilson.jpg

The Wilsons
Haraz N. Ghanbari/Associated Press, MSNBC, Time

As Vicky Ward explains in her feature on the Wilsons in Vanity Fair:

To most readers this information might have seemed harmless, but on July 22 [2003]Newsday's Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps reported that, according to their intelligence sources, Plame was an "undercover officer." In fact, she had NOC status, that is, nonofficial cover. NOCs are not ordinarily deskbound intelligence analysts who work inside C.I.A. headquarters. Mostly they operate abroad, frequently using fake job descriptions and sometimes fake names. According to a former senior C.I.A. officer, to blend in they often have to work two jobs: that of their "cover" and that involving their C.I.A. duties, which usually consists of handling foreign agents in the field, but can also involve recruiting them. NOCs have no diplomatic protection and so are vulnerable to hostile regimes that can imprison or execute them without official repercussions. A NOC's only real defense is his or her cover, which can take years to build. Because of this vulnerability, a NOC's identity is considered within the C.I.A. to be, as former C.I.A. analyst Kenneth Pollack has put it, "the holiest of holies."

Given Ward's description of the vulnerability of NOCs, it is even more highly unlikely that Wilson would ever have divulged his wife's "NOC status" to Vallely (a relative stranger) or even to a relative (e.g., his own brother), to his closest friends, or to anyone else without appropriate government clearance for such classified information. According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Ward continues, neither should any one of the "senior government officials" have disclosed it intentionally to Novak or to other reporters (or intentionally given reporters and their readers enough clues to ferret it out themselves).

Wilson's response to the claims

According to another "exclusive" posted on the blog WorldNetDaily––which appears as a featured link on the John Batchelor Show website––Wilson demanded through his lawyer that Vallely retract these allegations, calling them "patently false":

Ambassador Joseph Wilson's attorney is demanding Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely retract a statement he made to WND that the man at the center of the CIA leak case "outed" his own wife as a CIA employee in conversations more than a year before her identity was revealed in a syndicated column.

A demand letter was sent by Christopher Wolf, partner at Proskauer Rose LLP and counsel for Wilson, to both Vallely and WND tonight.

It disputes Vallely's claim that Wilson mentioned Valerie Plame's status with the CIA in conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington as they waited to appear as analysts.

"As you know, that assertion and the claim that Ambassador Wilson revealed to you or to anyone that his wife worked for the CIA is patently false, and subjects you and anyone publishing your statements to legal liability," states the letter.

It continues: "We are writing to demand that you immediately retract the assertion attributed to you and to insist that you stop making the false allegation. In addition, we request that you identify all persons or entitites (sic) to whom you made any claim that Ambassador Wilson revealed his wife's employment at the CIA to you."

According to Farah and Moore, "The e-mail received by WND included earlier comments by Wilson to his attorney":

"This is slanderous," Wilson wrote. "I never appeared on TV before at least July 2002 and only saw him maybe twice in the green room at FOX. Vallely is a retired general and this is a bald faced lie. Can we sue? This is not he said/he said, since I never laid eyes on him till several months after he alleges I spoke to him about my wife."

Subsequently, in media appearances and via online posts by Art Moore in WorldNetDaily, General Vallely revised the number of times that he claimed to have met and spoken with Wilson specifically about his wife's "employment" for the CIA (yet still not her specific status as a NOC) to only "one occasion." Wilson vigorously disputed the General's claims regarding any such conversation touching on his wife's "employment".

According to John Batchelor's own post on the blog RedState on November 6, 2005, Lt. General Tom McInerney (USAF Retired) said that Joe Wilson also "boasted" about his wife's job with the CIA to him while they were waiting in the green room at FOX News. Wilson has also labeled these further claims "slanderous," while serving notice of possible legal repercussions on Vallely, McInerney, and WorldNetDaily. Again following Vallely's lead, after being threatened with legal action by Wilson's lawyer, in his own various later media appearances, McInerney has also backed away from initial impressions that he gave that he himself also had experiences in conversations with Wilson that supported his friend Vallely's claims. According to the investigation by Media Matters for America, contradicting such allegations by Batchelor on his radio show, it has become clear that he did not have any such firsthand experience of his own pertaining to Wilson's wife's "employment".

Responses to the claims by others

• Brit Hume, managing editor of FOX News, observes:

Liberal Websites say they have proof Vallely is lying, saying research service LexisNexis shows Vallely and Wilson never appeared on FOX on the same day. But in fact, Vallely and Wilson appeared on the same day nine times in 2002, and on the same show twice — on September 8 and September 12, when both men appeared within 15 minutes of one another."

• A compendium of the appearances by Wilson and Vallely on FOX posted on the blog Crooks and Liars reveals that there is only one possible date, September 12, 2002, during which the two would have been in the green room within hours of each other.

• Denver criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt, a legal analyst and frequent guest on Fox News and several other networks, who has personally been in their green rooms, also scoured the FOX transcripts to compile this information independently and presented all of it and her related "conclusion" in her blog TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime:

My conclusion: Only September 12 is a possibility. That date, Wilson's segment was over 15 minutes before Vallely's began. The Fox green room in New York is very small and contains an even smaller makeup room that only has one guest chair. Guests are by themselves in the makeup room. I assume Wilson would have been having his makeup done before his segment, so Vallely wouldn't have been with him then. Even if they did overlap in the green room for a couple of minutes, it strains credulity to think the topic of Wilson's wife's employment with the CIA would have come up. There likely would have only time for mere pleasantries. [Add: If they were in D.C. instead of New York, ignore this last sentence.]

• Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson strongly questions the credibility of both Generals, posting on his own blog No Quarter:

I too was a Fox News Contributor in 2002 and spent a lot of time in the Green Room with both Vallely and McInerney. I saw them but never saw Joe Wilson. What is really curious is that I know I spent more time with Vallely and McInerney than Joe Wilson ever did and the subject of my wife (or their wives) never came up.

• In agreement with others who have been in the Fox studio green rooms, former Naval intelligence officer and NSA analyst Wayne Madsen also doubts Vallely's claims:

As someone who spent a fair amount of time at Fox News' Washington green room, I can say that . . . [w]hen you are booked by Fox to appear, a car is sent around to pick you up. The car arrives with enough time to transport you to the studios at 400 North Capitol Street, usually 15 minutes before air time. However, most of that time is spent checking in and sitting for makeup. If you happen upon another guest in the green room before sitting for makeup, they are likely only minutes from air time –– certainly not enough time to engage in a biographical rendition about your family with a total stranger. If two guests appeared at the same time at Fox in Washington, they were taken to different studios.

That Vallely and Wilson crossed paths and conversed about Plame in the Fox green room in either Washington or New York is simply not an established or verifiable fact. Even if Wilson had mentioned to Vallely that his wife worked for the CIA (which is still highly dubious), Vallely himself makes no verifiable assertion that they discussed her "classified status" as an "operative" of the CIA, which is the particular aspect of her "employment" at issue in any unauthorized disclosures of it relating to Novak's column and the later Grand Jury investigation of the "Plame leak" by Special Counsel Fitzgerald.

Moreover, the claims of both Vallely and McInerney that Valerie Wilson's classified affiliation with the CIA was generally well known outside the intelligence community in Washington, D.C., is contradicted by the 28 Oct. 2005 Office of the Special Counsel indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, as already cited above:

At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. ("Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson" 3; italics added).

Richard Armitage as Novak's "primary source"

In their recent book Hubris, Michael Isikoff and David Corn assert that it was Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, who first revealed that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA to Robert Novak sometime before July 8, 2003. In late August 2006, along with advance publicity for the book, news accounts and editorials began focusing on that public revelation:

Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the C.I.A. leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday [August 29, 2006].

An editorial published in the Washington Post on September 1, 2006 headlined "End of an Affair" proclaims "It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband," opining further:

It now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

As reported by Legal News TV, aware that he too has now been added to the civil suit brought against Rove, Libby, and Cheney by Joe and Valerie Wilson, Armitage seemed explicitly contrite:

Revealing himself as the source who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative just got Richard Armitage sued.

Though the former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage expressed regrets and apologies in media interviews, Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson amended their lawsuit to add Armitage as a defendant along with Vice President Dick Cheney and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Yet, unlike the allegations leveled against his co-defendants, the couple does not allege that Armitage intentionally leaked Plame's identity to punish the couple for Wilson's criticisms of the Administration's policy in Iraq. According to the amended complaint, Armitage acted independently of his White House colleagues, but nonetheless violated Plame's right to privacy.

"There wasn't a day when I didn't feel like I had let down the president, the secretary of state, my colleagues, my family and the Wilsons. I value my ability to keep state secrets. This was bad and I really felt badly about this."

In a column posted in TownHall.com on 14 September 2006, however, Novak disputes details of Armitage's recent media accounts of their conversations, offering a politically-charged reinterpretation of their past and present contexts:

When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.

An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of him being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I long had opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me improbably into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he and not Karl Rove was the leaker was devastating news for the Left.

Despite Robert Novak's own conclusion that the identification of Armitage is "devastating news" for "the Left" in its attempts to corroborate what Novak calls the "left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson," former Ambassador Wilson continues to enjoy support among investigative journalists and others in both the mainstream media and the alternative media who believe that such a "conspiracy" did exist and that its cover up may still exist, such as Frank Rich (The Greatest Story Ever Sold) and Robert Parry ("U.S. Press Bigwigs Screw Up, Again" and "How Obtuse Is the U.S. Press?").

In the "October/November Preview" published in the American Journalism Review (Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland, College Park) and aptly entitled "Whatever," AJR's editor and senior vice president Rem Rieder similarly observes the "collective yawn" with which the mainstream media appears to have greeted the disclosure that it was Richard Armitage who was Robert Novak's "primary source" in "Plamegate."

Citing "a column agreeing with readers that his paper had underplayed Armitage and that the story belonged out front," Rieder says that "Kansas City Star Readers' Representative Derek Donovan put it well: 'Questioning – even suspicion – of those in power is a dearly-held American tradition, and many critical eyes have long, and I think rightly, focused on Rove's political influence at the White House. 'But that's not the issue here. From a simple standpoint of reporting news equitably, I think the Armitage revelation merited more prominent play.'"

Rieder himself wonders rhetorically:

So why the lame response? The easy answer, and a popular one on the right, is that much-ballyhooed liberal bias of the media. And there's no doubt an episode like this gives great ammunition to those who see the press as a bunch of card-carrying, fire-breathing lefties.

But I'm not buying it. Is that the same bunch of pinkos who were so cowed after 9/11, so credulous in their coverage of WMD? The same ones who brought us the Monica Lewinsky circus? (OK, lying about sex under oath is bad, but worse than leading a nation into an optional war with a dubious rationale, far too few troops and no plans for what to do after the fighting stops?) Or, speaking of long-running, high-profile "scandals" about not so much, the ones who wallowed in Whitewater?

Maybe it's simply a matter of embarrassment. After so much breathless coverage of supposed White House character assassination, maybe the MSM just kind of hoped the whole thing would go away.

Whatever the reason, it was a curious and disappointing performance.

Debate as to the merits of Wilson's claims in The Politics of Truth appears to remain ongoing, and the "case" of the Wilsons against past and present officials of the Bush administration is still unresolved as it moves through the legal justice system.

Support for Wilson

In "A White House Smear," based in part on an interview with Ambassador Wilson and published in The Nation on 15 July 2003, David Corn asks:

Is it relevant that Wilson's wife might have suggested him for the unpaid gig [to Niger]? Not really. And Wilson notes, with a laugh, that at that point their twins were two years old, and it would not have been much in his wife's interest to encourage him to head off to Africa. What matters is that Wilson returned with the right answer and dutifully reported his conclusions. (In March 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that the documents upon which the Niger allegation was based were amateurish forgeries.) His wife's role—if she had one—has nothing but anecdotal value. And Novak's sources could have mentioned it without providing her name. Instead, they were quite generous.

. . . .

The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security.

More recently, on 6 September 2006, in an article posted in the online version of The Nation alluding to his book co-authored with Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, David Corn writes:

Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration. Armitage, Rove and Libby had revealed information about a CIA officer who had searched for proof of the President's case. In doing so, they harmed her career and put at risk operations she had worked on and foreign agents and sources she had handled.

Another issue was whether Valerie Wilson had sent her husband to Niger to check out an intelligence report that Iraq had sought uranium there. Hubris contains new information undermining the charge that she arranged this trip. In an interview with the authors, Douglas Rohn, a State Department officer who wrote a crucial memo related to the trip, acknowledges he may have inadvertently created a misimpression that her involvement was more significant than it had been.
. . . .
"We knew nothing about what was going on in Iraq," a CIA official recalled. "We were way behind the eight ball. We had to look under every rock." Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming--wrongly--were for a nuclear weapons program. (The analysts rolled over the government's top nuclear experts, who had concluded the tubes were not destined for a nuclear program.)
. . . .

When the Novak column ran, Valerie Wilson was in the process of changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management. Her aim, she told colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator—to rise up a notch or two—and then return to secret operations. But with her cover blown, she could never be undercover again. Moreover, she would now be pulled into the partisan warfare of Washington. As a CIA employee still sworn to secrecy, she wasn't able to explain publicly that she had spent nearly two years searching for evidence to support the Administration's justification for war and had come up empty. (Italics added.)

Like Isikoff and Corn, later journalists in the mainstream media, independent journalists, interviewed CIA agents, and other skeptics of the George W. Bush administration still vigorously dispute its frequently-repeated claims and earlier testimony of some CIA agents that the purchase of the aluminum tubes by Iraq constitutes proof of a renewed nuclear enrichment program for the eventual production of weapons of mass destruction. Such ongoing questioning of these controversial and hotly-debated claims tends to support Wilson's arguments about such rationales for the 2003 invasion of Iraq being part of a "fabric of lies, distortions, and misinformation that it [the administration] had woven and fed the world to justify its war" in his 2004 book The Politics of Truth (414-15).

As Robert Parry observes:

Now, based on a new report about Armitage’s role in leaking Plame’s identity, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading U.S. news organizations are joining in a new campaign to disparage those who harbored suspicions about the Bush administration’s actions – from special prosecutor Fitzgerald to former Ambassador Wilson.

For these national journalists who act as if they are oblivious to all the evidence of a long-running White House smear campaign and cover-up, it might be time to pose the “Shawshank Redemption” question: “How can you be so obtuse?”

Of course, in the movie, the warden really wasn’t “obtuse.” He just wanted to keep benefiting from [his prisoner] [Andy] Dufrense’s financial skills and, most importantly, to protect his corrupt schemes. The motives of the Washington news media may be more of a mystery. ("How Obtuse Is the U.S. Press?")

Ian Buruma argues, in his New York Times Book Review of Frank Rich's The Greatest Story Ever Sold:

Newspaper editors should not have to feel the need to prove their patriotism, or their absence of bias. Their job is to publish what they believe to be true, based on evidence and good judgment. As Rich points out, such journals as The Nation and The New York Review of Books were quicker to see through government shenanigans than the mainstream press. And reporters from Knight Ridder got the story about intelligence fixing right, before The New York Times caught on. “At Knight Ridder,” Rich says, “there was a clearer institutional grasp of the big picture.”

Intimidation is only part of the story, however. The changing nature of gathering and publishing information has made mainstream journalists unusually defensive. That more people than ever are now able to express their views, on radio shows and Web sites, is perhaps a form of democracy, but it has undermined the authority of editors, whose expertise was meant to act as a filter against nonsense or prejudice. And the deliberate confusion, on television, of news and entertainment has done further damage. ("Theater of War" 11, col. 1)

Warner Bros. feature film

On the evening of the verdict in the Libby trial, Joseph C. Wilson appeared on Larry King Live, during which he announced that he and his wife had "signed a deal with Warner Bros of Hollywood to offer their consulting services - or maybe more - in the making of the forthcoming movie about the Libby trial," their lives and the CIA leak scandal. According to an article by Michael Fleming published in Variety earlier in the week, the feature film, a co-production between Weed Road's Akiva Goldsman and Jerry and Janet Zucker of Zucker Productions with a screenplay by Jez and John Butterworth to be based in part on Valerie Wilson's forthcoming book "Fair Game" (contingent on CIA clearances), is scheduled for release in August 2007.

The Wilsons' civil suit

Main article: Valerie Plame § The Wilsons' civil suit

Main article: Plame v. Cheney

On July 13, 2006, a civil suit was filed by Joseph and Valerie Wilson against Vice President Dick Cheney, his former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, top Presidential advisor Karl Rove, and other unnamed senior White House officials (among whom they later added Richard Armitage), for their role in the public disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified CIA status. On September 13, 2006, Joseph and Valerie Wilson amended their original lawsuit, adding Richard Armitage as a fourth defendant. Unlike their charges against Rove, Cheney, and Libby, "claiming that they had violated her constitutional rights and discredited her by disclosing that she was an undercover CIA operative," the Wilsons sued Armitage "for violating the 'Wilsons' constitutional right to privacy, Mrs. Wilson's constitutional right to property, and for committing the tort of publication of private facts.'"

On July 19, 2007, Judge Bates dismissed the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds, stating in his forty-one page decision that while it raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," the Wilsons had not shown that the case belonged in federal court.

According to the Wilsons' legal counsel, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), in her statement posted on the Wilsons' website, they are reviewing the decision and anticipate appealing it. As reported by Richard B. Schmitt in The Los Angeles Times, Ms. Sloan said that

Bates' decision recognized that the Wilsons' claims posed "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials." ... But, she said, the judge dismissed their lawsuit on a threshold legal issue centered on the difficulty of suing a federal official. ... "While we are obviously very disappointed by today's decision, we have always expected that this case would ultimately be decided by a higher court." Sloan said. "We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously to protect all Americans from vindictive government officials who abuse their power for their own political ends."

See also

• Downing Street memo
• Lewis Libby
• Plame affair
• Plame affair timeline
• Plame v. Cheney
• September Dossier (Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government)
• Valerie Plame
• Yellowcake
• Yellowcake forgery

References

• "Action Alert: Intelligence Manipulation at the Washington Post: Paper's Editorial Page Ignores Facts to Back Bush." Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting April 13, 2006.
• "Activism Update: Washington Post Responds to Critics: 'Two Views' of the Truth?" Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting April 19, 2006.
• "A Bad Leak." The New York Times April 16, 2006, Editorial. Accessed November 18, 2006.
• Bedard, Paul. "Washington Whispers: Wilson Adds Ammo to Hit War Credibility Gap." US News & World Reports October 20, 2003. Accessed November 19, 2006.
• Burns, John F. "Confrontation in the Gulf: Iraq Backs Off Its Threat to Execute Diplomats Who Hide Civilians." The New York Times September 28, 1990: A6. Accessed November 19, 2006. (TimesSelect subscription required.)
• Bush, George W. State of the Union Address whitehouse.gov January 28, 2003.
• Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (aka Duelfer Report). cia.gov September 30, 2004. Accessed September 22, 2006.
• Continetti, Matthew. "'A Little Literary Flair': Joe Wilson Wasn't a Truth-teller." The Weekly Standard July 26, 2004.
• Corn, David. "Novak vs. Armitage: Was the Plame Leak Deliberate?" The Nation September 13, 2006. Accessed September 19, 2006.
• –––. "What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA." The Nation September 18, 2006 (Web Only). Accessed September 24, 2006.
• –––. "A White House Smear." The Nation July 15, 2003. Accessed September 23, 2006.
• Diamond, John. "Scandal Grew from Dispute Over Uranium." USA Today October 30, 2005. Accessed February 8, 2007. [Incl. "2003 photograph for the opening spread of Vanity Fair. Jonas Karlsson, Vanity Fair," by Ward, as listed below.]
• Ehrenreich, Ben. "Unfair Game: Joseph Wilson on the Cost of Telling the Truth in Washington." Interview with Joseph C. Wilson. LA Weekly October 30, 2003. Accessed November 18, 2006.
• "End of an Affair: It Turns Out That the Person Who Exposed CIA Agent Valerie Plame Was Not Out to Punish Her Husband" (Editorial). Washington Post September 1, 2006. Accessed September 23, 2006.
• Fleischer, Ari. Press gaggle news release. whitehouse.gov July 7, 2003.
• A Good Leak: President Bush declassified some of the intelligence he used to decide on war in Iraq. Is that a scandal?" (Editorial). Washington Post April 9, 2006.
• Hitchens, Christopher. "Plame's Lame Game: What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and His Wife Forgot to Tell Us about the Yellow-cake Scandal." Slate July 13, 2004.
• Isikoff, Michael, and David Corn. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. New York: Crown, (Sept. 8) 2006. ISBN 0-307-34681-1.
• Kennedy, Ted. "The Neverending Saga of Phase II." kennedy.senate.gov. Rpt. from The Nation August 9, 2006.
• Johnson, Larry C., "Plame Update." No Quarter (blog) October 5, 2005. Accessed September 28, 2005. [Incl. timeline.]
• –––. "Trying to Smear Joe Wilson." No Quarter (blog) November 8, 2005. Accessed September 19, 2006.
• Leiby, Richard. "Man Behind the Furor: Wilson: Envoy with an Independent Streak." Washington Post October 1, 2003, A01. Rpt. in Wilson Bio. u-r-next.com n.d. Accessed September 26, 2006.
• May, Clifford D. "Our Man in Niger: Exposed and Discredited, Joe Wilson Might Consider Going Back." National Review Online July 12, 2004. Accessed September 17, 2006.
• Novak, Robert. "Armitage's Leak." TownHall.com September 14, 2006. Accessed September 17, 2006.
• –––. "Errant Former Ambassador." CNN July 15, 2004. Accessed September 17, 2006.
• –––. "Mission to Niger." Washington Post July 14, 2003:A21. Posted online October 20, 2005. Accessed September 20, 2006.
• Parry, Robert. "How Obtuse Is the U.S. Press?" ConsortiumNews.com (The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc) September 3, 2006. Accessed September 17, 2006.
• –––. "U.S. Press Bigwigs Screw Up, Again." ConsortiumNews.com (The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc) September 14, 2006. Accessed September 17, 2006.
• Powell, Colin. "Defending Claims." Transcript from the Online NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. PBS July 7, 2003. Accessed September 17, 2006.
• Rich, Frank. The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina. New York: Penguin Press, 2006. ISBN 1-59420-098-X. Rev. by Ian Buruma, "Theater of War." New York Times September 17, 2006, sec. 7 (Book Rev.): 1, 10.
• Roberts, Pat. "Additional Views of Chairman Pat Roberts joined by Senator Christopher S. Bond, Senator Orrin G. Hatch" on the Senate Intelligence Report. July 9, 2004. Rpt. on GlobalSecurity.org. (No longer archived at original location on Roberts' Senate website. Such press releases are posted on the website of the Senate Intelligence Committee.) Related press releases rpt. on UK site Acronym. [See comments by Matthew Continetti, Susan Schmidt, Clifford May, Robert Novak, and Joseph Wilson also listed herein.]
• –––. "Statement on Niger." Press release of July 11, 2003.
• Rupert, James. "Diplomats Struggle On In Saddam's Capital: Main Task Is Aiding U.S. Hostages." Washington Post (3 October 1990) p. A25.
• Schmidt, Susan. "Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mssion." Washington Post. July 9, 2004: A09. [Online registration required.]
• U.S. Senate Select Committee. Template:PDFlink. intelligence.senate.gov July 7, 2004. Cf. Template:PDFlink July 9, 2004. Accessed September 13, 2006.
• Ward, Vicky. "Double Exposure: As White House Powerhouse Karl Rove Becomes Increasingly Entangled in the C.I.A. Officer-outing Affair, VF.com Reprises This January 2004 Article on the Iraq-weapons Controversy That Embroiled Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and His Wife, Valerie Plame—Both of Whom Opened Up to Vanity Fair". Vanity Fair January 2004. Rpt. vanityfair.com. Accessed February 16, 2007. (11 pages.) Also accessible as "Double Exposure: Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson and His Wife, C.I.A. Operative Valerie Plame, Are at the Center of Controversy Over President Bush's Bogus Claim, in Last Year's State of the Union Address, That Saddam Had Tried to Buy Uranium in Africa". accessmylibrary.com. January 1, 2004. Accessed May 5, 2007 (original text). (See Diamond, as listed above, for photo.)
• Washington Post Editorial Board. "The Libby Verdict: The Serious Consequences of a Pointless Washington Scandal." The Washington Post. March 7, 2007. Accessed May 5, 2007.
• Wheeler, Marcy. Anatomy of Deceit: How the Bush Administration Used the Media to Sell the Iraq War and Out a Spy. Berkeley: Vaster Books (Dist. by Publishers Group West), 2007. ISBN 0-979-17610-7 (10). ISBN 978-0979-17610-4 (13).
• Wilson, Joseph C., IV. 'Administration Went After Me and My Wife'. Miami Herald May 2, 2004. Rpt. in the Common Dreams NewsCenter.
• –––. "A Conversation with Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV." Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California. November 9, 2005. Video clip. (1 hr., 21 mins., 46 secs.) Uploaded on September 25, 2006 via Google Video/UC Berkeley, Educational Technology Services. Accessed February 14, 2007.
• –––. "Debunking Distortions about My Trip to Niger." Washington Post July 17, 2004. Accessed September 19, 2006.
• –––. "Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate: The former Ambassador Responds to Allegations by Republican Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report Challenging His Credibility. " AlterNet July 19, 2004. [Reply to Senators Roberts, Bond, and Hatch.]
• –––. The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Put the White House on Trial and Betrayed my Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2004. Paperback ed., 2005. ISBN 0-7867-1551-0.
• –––. "A Right-Wing Smear Is Gathering Steam: Ex-envoy Says the GOP Has Targeted Him and His Wife." Los Angeles Times July 21, 2004. Rpt. in the Common Dreams NewsCenter. Accessed September 17, 2006.
• –––. Seeking honesty in U.S. policy. San Jose Mercury News September 14, 2003. Rpt. in the Common Dreams NewsCenter.
• –––. "What I Didn't Find in Africa." New York Times July 6, 2003 (TimesSelect subscription required). Rpt. "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Common Dreams NewsCenter. Both accessed September 17, 2006.
• –––. "Statement in Response to Jury's Verdict in U.S. v. I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby". Press release. Online posting. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). 6 March, 2007. Accessed 6 March, 2007.

Other related external links

• Biography of Joseph C. Wilson IV on the website of the Corporate and Public Strategy Advisory Group (CPSAG)
• Interactive Graphic: Timeline of a Leak in The New York Times online (NYTimes.com)
• Joseph C. Wilson 4th from Times Topics (NYTimes.com)
• Office of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald
• The Politics of Truth:: Inside the Lies that Put the White House on Trial and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir, by Joseph Wilson: website featuring excerpts from the book, interviews, and reviews, a news archive, and hyperlinked "Bibliography" (Copyright © 2004, Carroll & Graf Publishers & Joseph Wilson)
• Brewster Jennings was a front for Valerie Plame, Jean C. Edwards, Robert Ellmann, Paul Jennings (of the Anglo-Irish Bank), and others. The Boston accounting firm Burke Dennehy at the same address and phone number was in turn a front for Brewster Jennings.
• Plame's Brewster Jennings associate Jean C. Edwards is in the attendees lists of three Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics conferences where she spied on Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, and E. European countries involved in nuclear proliferation.