Joseph Wilson on Bush Crowd: A Real Threat to Our Republic

[Guest guest]

A

Wed, 06 Jul 2005 20:14:36 -0700

Joseph Wilson on Bush Crowd: " A Real Threat to Our Republic "

Citizens for Legitimate Government

 

 

 

 

http://www.legitgov.org/clg_interview_joseph_wilson_060705.html

 

Citizens for Legitimate Government, a multi-partisan activist group

established to expose the Bush Coup d'Etat and oppose the Bush

occupation in all of its manifestations.

 

 

 

 

 

Joseph Wilson on Bush Crowd: " A Real Threat to Our Republic "

 

Joseph Wilson is the author of The Politics of Truth: Inside the

Lies that led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity (Avalon

Publishing Group, 2004). Joseph Wilson is a political centrist, was a

career United States diplomat from 1976 to 1998. During Democratic and

Republican administrations he served in various diplomatic posts

throughout Africa and eventually as ambassador to Gabon. He was the

acting ambassador to Baghdad when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. In

February 2002, he investigated reports of Iraq's attempt to buy

uranium from Niger. In October 2003, Wilson received the Ron Ridenhour

Prize for Truth-Telling from the Fertel Foundation and the Nation

Institute. He lives in Washington, D.C.

 

Joseph Wilson was interviewed by Lori Price with Michael

Rectenwald, Ph.D., of Citizens For Legitimate Government on 6 July

2005. The transcript of that interview follows.

 

*******

 

Citizens For Legitimate Government: Thank you so much, Ambassador

Wilson, for doing this interview with Citizens For Legitimate

Government. It's very much appreciated. Thank you, also, for all you

have done for this country. We have your book, The Politics of Truth,

linked to CLG's 'Books CLG Recommends' page.

 

Mr. Ambassador, when you listened to George W. Bush's speech in

January of 2003 and his mention of the 'yellowcake from Niger,' did

you think that he was lying or simply that he was misled?' I know you

gave a formal response to the New York Times in the July editorial

[ " What I Didn't Find in Africa " ], and in subsequent interviews, but I

wonder if the word " liar " crossed your mind at the time, or thereafter.

 

Ambassador Joseph Wilson: At the time of the State of the Union, I

had no idea the President was referring to Niger. Remember, his

statement was 'the British government have learned that Saddam Hussein

recently attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa'. There

are four countries in Africa that produce yellowcake, so he could have

been speaking about one of the other three. It was only in March when

it became apparent that Niger was the country in question that I came

to understand that the administration had misstated the facts. To this

day, I don't know whether the President lied or was misled. I don't

expect him to be a fact checker on every detail in the State of the

Union but at the same time he did say that he was responsible for

every word in the speech. It is clear that the administration was

intent in making the nuclear threat case (How many times did we hear,

" we cannot afford to wait for the smoking gun to come in the form of a

mushroom cloud " ?) The administration was required by the use of force

authorization resolution passed by congress to convince itself of the

gravity of the WMD threat, and the nuclear case was the one they pushed.

 

CLG: Do you think that the Bush Administration pressured the CIA,

as the 'Downing Street Memo' put it, to " fix " the facts around the

policy about the war in Iraq?

 

JW: Absolutely. The pressure was sometimes subtle, like asking

analysts the same question thirty times until they received the answer

they wanted and sometimes heavy handed such as the several trips

Cheney took to the agency to press analysts to find something. And the

administration also set up separate cells within the bureaucracy to

stovepipe information directly to the White House bypassing the normal

analysis channels. That may be how the yellowcake information came to

the attention of the VP. The problem with the cell structure is that

much of the information they passed up the chain was completely bogus.

A cursory analysis by the intelligence community would have kept a lot

of that bogus information out of the decision-making loop. Instead,

the falsehoods formed the foundation of the case for invading,

conquering, and now occupying Iraq.

 

CLG: If you answered yes to the above question, do you think the

Bush Administration lied to justify the invasion of Iraq?

 

JW: It is clear from the Downing Street Memos that the

administration decided to go to war with Iraq far earlier than

generally assumed. The administration did not even request a national

intelligence estimate before making its decision (the request came

from Congress). The cherry-picking of the intelligence, the lack of

analysis, the use of information that was so clearly disputable or

unrealistic and known to be so, lead me to conclude that the

administration consciously misled the congress and the American

people. Yes, it lied to justify the invasion of Iraq.

 

CLG: If you answered yes to this latest question, what, if any,

consequences should follow?

 

JW: That the administration misled the American people was why I

spent so much time in the last campaign working to defeat the

administration. We settle political questions at the polls.

Regrettably the administration's continued lying secured its victory.

I believe that the congress should exercise its oversight

responsibilities and hold hearings in to the lies and deceptions of

the administration. For once the Republicans, who hold control of both

Houses, should put their loyalty to the Constitution and their

oversight responsibilities above partisanship. I doubt that they will

which leads really to the need to defeat them in the next two elections.

 

CLG: As Mary Wollstonecraft wrote about male domination in the

late 18th century, " [n]o man chooses evil because it is evil; he only

mistakes it for happiness, which is the good he seeks. "

Does this explain the push for war in Iraq by the Bush team? Did

they really believe they were doing the right thing for the US and the

world? Or, was there some less noble objective in mind from the start?

In short, what do you think was behind Bush's obsession with Iraq? Was

it Bush's personal antipathy for Hussein? Was it oil? (After all, maps

of Iraq's oil fields were part of the Cheney secret energy team papers

that were finally turned over, thanks to Judicial Watch's suit.) Was

it a broader geopolitical objective--privatizing water rights, gaining

oil and protecting Israel? Did it involve allowing key contractors to

make a tremendous amount of money that could not - and will likely

never - be accounted for? Was it all of the above or something else

entirely?

 

JW: I would not presume to speak for the President's underlying

motives. I heard him say that 'after all Saddam tried to kill my dad'

and I have heard the oil arguments, the protecting of Israel, etc. But

I think that the best explanation came from Bill Kristol in a debate

we had in Texas. He said it was all about changing the political

dynamics in the Middle East. The problem is war breeds extremism, as

we clearly see, and those are not the dynamics we wanted to change to.

If it was for oil, we surely screwed up as two years after the fact,

Iraqi production is flat. If it was for Israel, it is hard to see how

we have made it more stable, since the hatred we have spawned is

intense and the instability that has resulted from our invasion cannot

reassure Israel that its neighborhood is now safer.

 

CLG: Halliburton recently was awarded a $72 million-dollar 'bonus'

for its 'no-bid' work in Iraq and a 30-billion dollar contract to

build another prison at Guantanamo Bay. Do you think Halliburton's

ties to Dick Cheney could have been one of the motivating factors

behind the Bush/Cheney push to invade Iraq, or is this just an added

bonus, a fringe benefit? Or, are some Democrats merely making this

contract into a political hotcake when there is no 'there there,' as

Halliburton officials claim?

 

JW: Whether Halliburton was a motivator or a beneficiary is a good

question. One thing is clear in war: there will always be some who

will profit from the misery of others. Churchill once advocated and

may have passed a law limiting profits of defence contractors in time

of war to 10% to stop the war profiteering. Halliburton should welcome

such a law here to put an end to the speculation about its role and

unseemly profits at the expense of others. I am not holding my breath

however.

 

CLG: It was reported on 21 June 2005: $2.4 billion in $100 bills

was sent to Baghdad. What do you suppose happened to this money? Is

this simply part of the spoils of war, or do you think the recipients

of this money were connected to the contractors, who are (however

tangentially) connected to the administration?

 

JW: Wherever large amounts of cash are involved there are sticky

fingers. But I am not privy to this or any other specific expenditure.

Congress should certainly be looking in to it.

 

CLG: Did you know about the " Downing Street Memo(s) " prior to

its/their release?

 

JW: No.

 

CLG: What do you think of that part of the 'Downing Street Memo'

that focuses on the revelations that the Bush Administration was

trying to make the 'evidence' fit the 'crime' (a term suggested by CLG

Founder and Chair, Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., back in 2003? " The only

WMDs are those of the so-called 'coalition' forces, exploding like the

evidence in search of the crime. " ) [*See: March 30 Anti-W-ar Rally

Pittsburgh Speech, by Michael Rectenwald.]

 

JW: It is disheartening to see the extent to which we were

prepared to stretch the truth in order to justify the war. It is a

breach of faith with our armed forces and it ultimately undermines our

Constitution.

 

CLG: Why do you think the mainstream media, the cable news

networks and the pundits waited until the *middle of June 2005* to

report on the 'Downing Street Memo,' which was published by The Sunday

Times on 01 May 2005? (CLG reported this story early on 02 May 2005.)

Was this just pure laziness,

lack of interest, or as the Washington Post claimed, 'old news?'

Or was it something else? Did the White House try to cover it up with

some sort of threats to the media outlets?

 

JW: I think the media has let the country down. It has been

totally co-opted by the administration. I think it is a combination of

the hangover of 911, coupled with aggressive intimidation by the

administration and the right wing.

 

CLG: OK, getting to some of the nitty-gritty of the matter: What

was your personal feeling about Robert Novak illegally revealing the

job function of your wife, Valerie Plame? You must have been

understandably very angry. Did you fear for your wife's life? Did you

fear for your own life?

 

JW: I was obviously upset. After all, they compromised the

identity of one of their own national security assets. How dumb, and

how mean. I feared for my wife and kids as any husband and father

would. As to my own safety, after one has faced down Saddam Hussein,

as I did in the first Gulf war, it is hard to take Karl Rove and his

motley crew of school yard bullies very seriously as a physical threat.

 

CLG: Who did you think was the source of the leak to Novak? Did

you think that Rove was involved prior to the latest news? Do you

think that Rove was indeed a source or the source?

 

JW: I wrote in my book that there was a conspiracy in the white

house to find out everything they could about me and then use it

against me. I think the logical place to look for the conspiracy is in

the White House Iraq group (WHIG) which included Rove, Scooter Libby,

Karen Hughes, Ari Fleischer and others. I don't know who among them

might have been the leaker or authorized the leak.

 

CLG: Do you feel that reporters Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith

Miller of The New York Times should have turned over their documents

regarding the Plame affair? Do you think Novak is more to blame, since

he actually revealed the identity of a covert operative's name? Or are

the sources the only ones to blame? (I don't want to drag you into a

1st Amendment discussion here, just your general sense of the matter).

 

JW: No Comment.

 

CLG: What punishment if any would you recommend for the person(s)

who leaked

the memo, if they are found guilty?

 

JW: The law calls for ten years and a substantial fine. I think

that is appropriate.

 

CLG: Do you think Rove should explain his role in the outing of

Valerie NOW, as some House Democrats are insisting, rather than hiding

behind lawyers even before any legal charges are brought (if indeed

they ever are)?

 

JW: Absolutely. He is a senior adviser to the President of the

United States, after all.

 

CLG: Do you think that Rove will really ever face any consequences

for the Plame outing (or for anything else for that matter)?

 

JW: Yes.

 

CLG: I can't let this moment pass without asking you about 9/11

and the Bush Administration. Do you notice any oddities about how the

Bush Administration handled the events, the aftermath or the

investigation of 9/11? Do you see any holes in the government's

explanation of events? (Obviously, we at the CLG do. See our page:

http://www.legitgov.org/9_1_1_oddities.html.)

 

JW: I have obviously followed the inquiries into 9/11 and I know

Dick Clarke and Rand Beers very well but I am not an expert. I look to

the " Jersey Girls " who have so assiduously pushed the case in the

memory of their late husbands, for real understanding. I have great

admiration for them and for what they have done. They are not

satisfied, so neither am I.

 

CLG: When all is said and done, do you see the Bush Administration

as a run-of-the-mill Republican Administration, or do you see it as

something different, something a bit more 'sinister?' A lot of us are

of the opinion that the Bush 'regime' is illegitimate and we feel that

Republicans stole the election for George W. Bush in 2000. And many

people think that the Republicans stole Ohio and therefore the

election for Bush in 2004. If you look at the independent research,

statistics indicate a pattern of serious incongruities between exit

polling and the official results in key states that used electronic

voting. Do you care to comment?

 

JW: This is a radical regime, not a Republican administration. It

is the most oppressive crowd I have ever seen and is a real threat to

our republic. While I am not an expert in elections I can see how

people might believe the last two elections were stolen. The lesson

for the democrats is to stop rolling over and stand up for what you

believe in. The republicans believe the democrats and the press are

soft and can be pushed around and that is what they are doing. To the

detriment of us all.

 

CLG: What do you see happening with the Bush Administration -

recently, the 'I' word (impeachment) has appeared in the mainstream

media. Do you see the impeachment as a possible fate for George W.

Bush, Dick Cheney, and/or other key players of the Bush Administration?

 

JW: It is unlikely that Republican-held Houses of Congress are

going to open an inquiry unless they suddenly decide their

Constitutional oversight responsibilities trump their partisan

loyalties. I am not holding my breath.

 

CLG: Thank you so much, Ambassador Wilson, for your time.

--Lori Price and Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.

 

Update from Joseph Wilson, 06 July, 2005 3:23 PM EST

 

Statement of Joseph Wilson on the sentencing of New York Times

reporter Judith Miller

 

The sentencing of Judith Miller to jail for refusing to disclose

her sources is the direct result of the culture of unaccountability

that infects the Bush White House from top to bottom. President Bush's

refusal to enforce his own call for full cooperation with the Special

Counsel has brought us to this point. Clearly, the conspiracy to cover

up the web of lies that underpinned the invasion of Iraq is more

important to the White House than coming clean on a serious breach of

national security. Thus has Ms Miller joined my wife, Valerie, and her

twenty years of service to this nation as collateral damage in the

smear campaign launched when I had the temerity to challenge the

President on his assertion that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium

yellowcake from Africa.

 

The real victims of this cover-up, which may have turned criminal,

are the Congress, the Constitution and, most tragically, the Americans

and Iraqis who have paid the ultimate price for Bush's folly.

 

*******

Lori R. Price is General.Manager, Citizens For Legitimate Government.

Michael D. Rectenwald, Ph.D., is Founder and Chair, Citizens For

Legitimate Government.