OLBERMANN: Later on COUNTDOWN, my full interview with Ambassador Wilson about his book, about his wife, about his experience. We think it will be interesting to you, given that it was interesting enough to the White House that it sent us three e-mails with questions we should ask him.
Would, one wishes, somebody in government had been so aggressive about briefing the troops on how to handle the prisoners, or at least, as that interview with the attorney for Charles Grainer suggests, if somebody had sent them a one paragraph synopsis of the Geneva Conventions.
...OLBERMANN: Why do you think they went after you? Because you were the first person who said on the record that the Niger Uranium claim was false and that the administration knew it was false but used it as a cornerstone in the rationale for war?
WILSON: I have tried to think my way through this. The only logical conclusion I could come up with was that it was an effort to intimidate others from coming forward. Because, after all, I had already said my piece. I had said everything I had to say on the subject. The government within 24 hours had accepted what I had said. Now since that time, “The Washington Post” has reported that it was an act of pure spite and revenge. Which is not, by the way, a rational act to be undertaken normally by senior civil servants who are responsible for the stewardship of our national security.
OLBERMANN: You do know that they are still going after you, right? We promoted the fact that you would be on this show tonight. Today we received three separate copies of the same e-mail with talking points from the White House, one asking a contact here “Can you please get this to the Olbermann people. Wilson is on the Olbermann show.” Misspelled my name, by the way, but that‘s neither here nor there. Another one asks one of our producers “I understand you have Mr. Wilson on. Can you please call me on this?”
Are you surprised by that?
WILSON: No, I‘m not surprised at all. I tell you this administration has tried to manage and direct the news from the very beginning. As I point out in the book, they have made the lives of journalists very unpleasant. One journalist said he was afraid to go to print because he might end up in Guantanamo, which I take to be a metaphor for being cut out. Another journalist said I‘ve got kids in a private school and a mortgage to pay. So I‘m not surprised at all.
OLBERMANN: The White House has other venues to write questions than this program and we‘ll let them do that, but there are six points on this list. Five are pretty nuanced and they basically say “no this isn‘t true” but one of them I think is actually pretty important, on page 444, you pointed out that the White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied Karl Rove was involved in the leaking of your wife‘s identity, but he would not be as direct in denying the possibility that your other two candidates, Scooter Libby and Eliot Abrams might have done this. The White House talking points, number 4 on this list quotes Mr. McClellan last October, asked about Rove, Libby and Abrams as saying, “at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made and that‘s exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals.”
Does that not count as a denial, not just on Rove but also on Libby and Abrams?
WILSON: Well, it‘s not how I interpreted it It‘s how others who have taken a look at that and others of Mr. McClelland‘s statements that have interpreted that as being a non-denial denial. In other words rather than saying they categorically had nothing to do with the leaking of my wife‘s name to the press, what Mr. McClellan has gone out and said that well, they did not leak any classified information.
...OLBERMANN: A quote from page 420 of the book:
“to this day the person who leaked her name evidently remains in a position where he enjoys the trust of President Bush.”
Do you think that may be the most disturbing fact from your point of view of all this at this point, anyway?
WILSON: Well, we have always tried to see this in the larger perspective, as a crime against the national security of the country. President George H. W. Bush called people who leaked CIA operatives names to the press the most insidious of traders. That is what we are dealing with. And that person, or those people who are responsible for this operation are still in government.
...OLBERMANN: The political vetting that we need to do in all circumstances, it‘s been made clear you‘re campaigning for John Kerry now. You‘ve contributed to his campaign. Why has it not been made clear that you contributed to George Bush‘s campaign in 2000?
WILSON: Well, when Mr. Gillespie decided that he was going to trot that out against me, or when Mr. Novak did, they decided they would selectively use information that bolstered the attack they wanted to make on me rather than essentially tell the whole truth. They neglected both that contribution, they neglected contributions I‘ve made in the past to Congressman Ed Royce from Orange County, California, for example.
OLBERMANN: Have you ever thought of asking Mr. Bush for your money back?
WILSON: Well, actually I just really asked them to quit putting me down as an addressee for fund raising letters which I was getting one every two or three weeks for a long time.
article
Would, one wishes, somebody in government had been so aggressive about briefing the troops on how to handle the prisoners, or at least, as that interview with the attorney for Charles Grainer suggests, if somebody had sent them a one paragraph synopsis of the Geneva Conventions.
...OLBERMANN: Why do you think they went after you? Because you were the first person who said on the record that the Niger Uranium claim was false and that the administration knew it was false but used it as a cornerstone in the rationale for war?
WILSON: I have tried to think my way through this. The only logical conclusion I could come up with was that it was an effort to intimidate others from coming forward. Because, after all, I had already said my piece. I had said everything I had to say on the subject. The government within 24 hours had accepted what I had said. Now since that time, “The Washington Post” has reported that it was an act of pure spite and revenge. Which is not, by the way, a rational act to be undertaken normally by senior civil servants who are responsible for the stewardship of our national security.
OLBERMANN: You do know that they are still going after you, right? We promoted the fact that you would be on this show tonight. Today we received three separate copies of the same e-mail with talking points from the White House, one asking a contact here “Can you please get this to the Olbermann people. Wilson is on the Olbermann show.” Misspelled my name, by the way, but that‘s neither here nor there. Another one asks one of our producers “I understand you have Mr. Wilson on. Can you please call me on this?”
Are you surprised by that?
WILSON: No, I‘m not surprised at all. I tell you this administration has tried to manage and direct the news from the very beginning. As I point out in the book, they have made the lives of journalists very unpleasant. One journalist said he was afraid to go to print because he might end up in Guantanamo, which I take to be a metaphor for being cut out. Another journalist said I‘ve got kids in a private school and a mortgage to pay. So I‘m not surprised at all.
OLBERMANN: The White House has other venues to write questions than this program and we‘ll let them do that, but there are six points on this list. Five are pretty nuanced and they basically say “no this isn‘t true” but one of them I think is actually pretty important, on page 444, you pointed out that the White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied Karl Rove was involved in the leaking of your wife‘s identity, but he would not be as direct in denying the possibility that your other two candidates, Scooter Libby and Eliot Abrams might have done this. The White House talking points, number 4 on this list quotes Mr. McClellan last October, asked about Rove, Libby and Abrams as saying, “at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made and that‘s exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals.”
Does that not count as a denial, not just on Rove but also on Libby and Abrams?
WILSON: Well, it‘s not how I interpreted it It‘s how others who have taken a look at that and others of Mr. McClelland‘s statements that have interpreted that as being a non-denial denial. In other words rather than saying they categorically had nothing to do with the leaking of my wife‘s name to the press, what Mr. McClellan has gone out and said that well, they did not leak any classified information.
...OLBERMANN: A quote from page 420 of the book:
“to this day the person who leaked her name evidently remains in a position where he enjoys the trust of President Bush.”
Do you think that may be the most disturbing fact from your point of view of all this at this point, anyway?
WILSON: Well, we have always tried to see this in the larger perspective, as a crime against the national security of the country. President George H. W. Bush called people who leaked CIA operatives names to the press the most insidious of traders. That is what we are dealing with. And that person, or those people who are responsible for this operation are still in government.
...OLBERMANN: The political vetting that we need to do in all circumstances, it‘s been made clear you‘re campaigning for John Kerry now. You‘ve contributed to his campaign. Why has it not been made clear that you contributed to George Bush‘s campaign in 2000?
WILSON: Well, when Mr. Gillespie decided that he was going to trot that out against me, or when Mr. Novak did, they decided they would selectively use information that bolstered the attack they wanted to make on me rather than essentially tell the whole truth. They neglected both that contribution, they neglected contributions I‘ve made in the past to Congressman Ed Royce from Orange County, California, for example.
OLBERMANN: Have you ever thought of asking Mr. Bush for your money back?
WILSON: Well, actually I just really asked them to quit putting me down as an addressee for fund raising letters which I was getting one every two or three weeks for a long time.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!