Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat's Memoir: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity

The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat's Memoir: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity

3.4 18
by Joseph Wilson

See All Formats & Editions

Through the last three presidential administrations and two wars with Iraq, no one has personally witnessed, influenced, or fueled news over more history-making events than Joseph Wilson. The last American diplomat to sit face-to-face with Saddam Hussein, he is a consummate insider who has the intelligence, principles, and independence to examine current American


Through the last three presidential administrations and two wars with Iraq, no one has personally witnessed, influenced, or fueled news over more history-making events than Joseph Wilson. The last American diplomat to sit face-to-face with Saddam Hussein, he is a consummate insider who has the intelligence, principles, and independence to examine current American foreign policy and the inner workings of government and to form a candid assessment of the United States' involvement in the world. In February 2002, Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in that country. Wilson's report, and two from other American officials, conclusively negated such rumors, yet all were brushed aside by the White House. Startled by the infamous words uttered by George W. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union Address: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Wilson decided to reveal the truth behind the initiation of the Iraq war. The Politics of Truth is an explosive and revelatory book by a man who stands for the accurate recording of history against those forces bent on fabricating truth.

Editorial Reviews

St. Louis Post Dispatch
Superb . . . . Wilson's allegations carry the ring of truth.
John W. Dean
This is a riveting and all-engaging book. Not only does it provide context to yesterday's headlines, and perhaps tomorrow's, about the Iraq war and about our politics of personal destruction, but former Ambassador Joseph Wilson also tells captivating stories from his life as a foreign service officer with a long career fostering the development of African democracies, and gives us a behind-the-scenes blow-by-blow of the run-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
The New York Times
Washington Post Book World
The first 300 or so pages of The Politics of Truth is a worthy, occasionally entertaining, if overlong, chronicle of diplomatic service that would never have been widely published but for Wilson's involvement in one of the more bizarre episodes of the Bush administration. In July 2003, Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as an undercover CIA operative, allegedly in retaliation for Wilson blowing the whistle on Bush administration dissembling about Iraqi efforts to procure weapons of mass destruction. The section of Wilson's book that deals with the flap, roughly the last 130 pages, is repetitive and self-dramatizing. It does not reveal much in the way of "news" -- Wilson's claims and conclusions are either long hashed over or based on what the intelligence business describes as "rumint," or rumor intelligence. But as a diary of ego and suspicion, inflamed by leaks and posturing on all sides, The Politics of Truth is revealing, though not always intentionally.
Evan Thomas
Publishers Weekly
Nobody who's paid close attention to the unfolding story of the leaking to columnist Robert Novak of the name of Ambassador Wilson's wife as a CIA operative will be surprised by the two White House staffers-Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Elliott Abrams-Wilson proposes as the most likely suspects in what he calls the "organized smear campaign" against him. He views the leak as retaliation for his presenting evidence that, contrary to President Bush's 2003 State of the Union assertion, Iraq was not trying to buy uranium from Niger. Wilson hits back hard with a righteous anger against those who would jeopardize national security to score political points. By the account of this longtime Foreign Service officer who was in Baghdad in the months leading up to the first Gulf War, Wilson stood up to Saddam Hussein in a showdown that now makes for one of the memoir's most stirring sections. In fact, readers will discover this book to be a vivid, engrossing account of a foreign service career that spans nearly three decades. Wilson is a lively storyteller with an eye for compelling visual detail and brings a welcome insider's perspective on the political situations of African nations where he has served. He's equally honest about the toll his professional commitment has occasionally taken on his personal life. And it's that candor, as well as the respect shown for previous administrations of both parties, that helps make his charges against the current president's advisers difficult to brush off. His revelations should fly off the shelves. 3 maps, 16 pages of b&w photos not seen by PW. Agent, Audrey Wolf. (May 4) Forecast: A veritable media onslaught for Wilson begins with articles in the New York Times and Newsweek, and an NBC sweep on Dateline, Meet the Press and Today. 130,000 first printing. Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information.

Product Details

Perseus Publishing
Publication date:
Product dimensions:
6.38(w) x 9.56(h) x 1.37(d)

Read an Excerpt

Chapter Seventeen

A Strange Encounter with Robert Novak

Late on Tuesday afternoon, July 8, six days before Robert Novak's article about Valerie and me, a friend showed up at my office with a strange and disturbing tale. He had been walking down Pennsylvania Avenue toward my office near the White House when he came upon Novak, who, my friend assumed, was en route to the George Washington University auditorium for the daily taping of CNN's Crossfire. He asked Novak if he could walk a block or two with him, as they were headed in the same direction; Novak acquiesced. Striking up a conversation, my friend, without revealing that he knew me, asked Novak about the uranium controversy. It was a minor problem, Novak replied, and opined that the administration should have dealt with it weeks before. My friend then asked Novak what he thought about me, and Novak answered: "Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him." At that point, my friend and Novak went their separate ways. My friend headed straight for my office a couple of blocks away.
Once he related this unsettling story to me, I asked him to immediately write down the details of the conversation and afterwards ushered him out of my office. Next, I contacted the head of the news division at CNN, Eason Jordan, Novak's titular boss, whom I had known for a number of years. It took several calls, but I finally tracked him down on his cell phone. I related to him the details of my friend's encounter with Novak and pointed out that whatever my wife might or might not be, it was the height of irresponsibility for Novak to share such information with an absolute stranger on a Washington street. I asked him to speak to Novak for me, but he demurred- he said he did not know him very well-and suggested that I speak to Novak myself. I arranged for him to have Novak call me and hung up.
Novak called the next morning, but I was out, and then so was he. We did not connect until the following day, July 10. He listened quietly as I repeated to him my friend's account of their conversation. I told him I couldn't imagine what had possessed him to blurt out to a complete stranger what he had thought he knew about my wife.
Novak apologized, and then asked if I would confirm what he had heard from a CIA source: that my wife worked at the Agency. I told him that I didn't answer questions about my wife. I told him that my story was not about my wife or even about me; it was about sixteen words in the State of the Union address.
I then read to him three sentences from a 1990 news story about the evacuation of Baghdad: "The chief American diplomat, Joe Wilson, shepherds his flock of some 800 known Americans like a village priest. At 4:30 Sunday morning, he was helping 55 wives and children of U.S. diplomats from Kuwait load themselves and their few remaining possessions on transport for the long haul on the desert to Jordan. He shows the stuff of heroism." The reporters who had written this, I pointed out, were Robert Novak and Rowland Evans. I suggested to Novak that he might want to check his files before writing about me. I also offered to send him all the articles I had written in the past year on policy toward Iraq so that he could educate himself on the positions I had taken. He would learn, if he took the time, that I was hardly antiwar, just anti-dumb war. Before I hung up, Novak apologized again for having spoken about Valerie to a complete stranger.
The following Monday, July 14, 2003, I read Novak's syndicated column in the Washington Post. The sixth paragraph of the ten-paragraph story leapt out at me: "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 Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."
When I showed it to Valerie, she was stoic in her manner but I could see she was crestfallen. Twenty years of loyal service down the drain, and for what, she asked after she had read it. What was Novak trying to say? What did blowing her cover have to do with the story?  It was nothing but a hatchet job. She immediately began to prepare a checklist of things she needed to do to minimize the fallout to projects she was working on. Ever efficient, she jotted down reminders to mask the emotions swirling through her body. Finally, as the enormity of what Novak had done now settled on her, she sat in the corner and wondered aloud if she would still have any friends left after they found out that the person they knew was not her at all but a lie that she lived very convincingly.
Amid the welter of emotions I felt that morning, I tried to understand a particular element of Novak's story.
He cited not a CIA source, as he had indicated on the phone four days earlier, but rather two senior administration sources; I called him for a clarification. He asked if I was very displeased with the article, and I replied that I did not see what the mention of my wife had added to it but that the reason for my call was to question his sources. When we first spoke, he had cited to me a CIA source, yet his published story cited two senior administration sources. He replied: "I misspoke the first time we talked."
A couple of days before Novak's article was published, but after my friend's strange encounter with him, I had received a call from Post reporter Walter Pincus, who alerted me that "they are coming after you." Since I already knew what Novak had learned about Valerie, I was increasingly concerned over what else might be put out about her. I assumed, though, that the CIA would itself quash any article that made reference to Valerie. While not yet familiar with the specifics of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, I knew that protection of the identity of agents in our clandestine service was the highest priority, and well understood by the experienced press corps in Washington. Novak had still been trolling for sources when we spoke on the telephone, so I assumed that he did not have the confirmations he would need from the CIA to publish the story. I told Valerie, who alerted the press liaison at the CIA, and we were left with the reasonable expectation that any reference to her would be dropped, since he would have no way of confirming the information-unless, of course, he got confirmations from another part of the government, such as the White House.
Quite apart from the matter of her employment, the assertion that Valerie had played any substantive role in the decision to ask me to go to Niger was false on the face of it. Anyone who knows anything about the government bureaucracy knows that public servants go to great lengths to avoid nepotism or any appearance of it. Family members are expressly forbidden from accepting employment that places them in any direct professional relationship, even once or twice removed. Absurd as these lengths may seem, a supervisor literally cannot even supervise the supervisor of the supervisor of another family member without high-level approval. Valerie could not have stood in the chain of command had she tried to. Dick Cheney might be able to find a way to appoint one of his daughters to a key decision-making position in the State Department's Middle East Bureau, as he did; but Valerie could not-and would not if she could-have had anything to do with the CIA decision to ask me to travel to Niamey.
The publication of the article marked a turning point in our lives. There was no possibility of Valerie recovering her former life. She would never be able to regain the anonymity and secrecy that her professional life had required; she would not be able to return to her discreet work on some of the most sensitive threats to our society in the foreseeable future, and perhaps ever.
I had many questions for Novak: What did the inclusion of Valerie's name add to his article? So what if she worked on intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction? There was nothing nefarious about that. All this had happened because Novak chose not to heed the entreaties of government officials to whom he spoke and who, by Novak's own admission, asked that he not publish her name or employment. While Novak has since downplayed the request of the cia that he not publish her name, I wondered which part of 'NO' he didn't understand. Murray Waas, writing in the American Prospect, has a different take:

Two government officials have told the FBI that conservative columnist Robert Novak was asked specifically not to publish the name of undercover cia operative Valerie Plame in his now-famous July 14 newspaper column. The two officials told investigators they warned Novak that by naming Plame he might potentially jeopardize her ability to engage in covert work, stymie ongoing intelligence operations, and jeopardize sensitive overseas sources.

So what if she conveyed a request to me to come to the Agency to talk about Niger? She had played absolutely no part in the decision to send me there. Should an agency of the U.S. government not ask me about the uranium business in Niger, a subject that I knew well, just because my wife happened to work in the same suite of offices?
Lamely attempting to shirk responsibility, Novak claimed that the CIA no was "a soft no, not a hard no." On the wings of that ludicrous defense, he soared to new heights of journalistic irresponsibility. But Novak has long since demonstrated that he is not so much a scrupulous journalist as he is a confirmed purveyor of the right-wing party line, whether it's touting the truth or-as it all too often is, unfortunately-promoting the big lie. In this instance, in addition to buying into the big lie, Novak was slavishly doing the bidding of the cowards in the administration who had decided that the only way to discredit me was to betray national security. I will defend his First Amendment rights as a journalist, but I don't have to like what he did. In fact, watching Valerie's face fall as she realized that her life had been so irreparably altered, I felt that punching the man in the nose would not have been an unreasonable response.
I decided that I would not rise to Novak's bait or dignify his article with a published response, and that I would not speak about Valerie other than hypothetically. It was not up to me to confirm or deny her employment; it was up to the CIA. A few days later, Newsday reporter Timothy Phelps, whom I had met in Iraq twelve years earlier, informed me that he had heard from the CIA that what Novak had reported vis-à-vis Valerie's employment was not incorrect. I declined to be drawn into a confirmation even then.
The week was not without its drama, however. Even though I had been avoiding the press since the day after my article appeared in July, I had still been intently following the reporting about Novak's article in the media. Too intently. I was waking up in the middle of the night and pacing the floor, as I had during that critical period in Baghdad during Desert Shield. Back then, my mind would be going a thousand miles a minute, trying to gain an edge on the thugs in the Iraqi regime; now I was trying to predict what the thugs in my own government would do, so I'd be ready to react effectively to their next move. I would get up at 3:00 a.m., after only a few hours of sleep, and review press reports from around the world. In Britain, meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair was under the gun for possibly having "sexed up" the case he had made on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In Australia, Prime Minister John Howard was subjected to similar hard questions as well; he would subsequently be censured for having deceived his parliament. Howard and British Foreign Minister Jack Straw were both obliged to tell their press that they did not know Joe Wilson.
Four days after Novak's article appeared, Britain was convulsed by the suicide of a former weapons inspector named David Kelly, a longtime civil servant in the ministry of defense. Kelly had been a source for the BBC's exposé of the charge that the government had exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam. He had been under increasing pressure from the investigation and had apparently killed himself. I received several calls from friends wondering, first, whether it had in fact been a suicide; and, if not, was I watching my own security? They also wanted to know how I was bearing up under the pressure. I, too, wondered about Kelly's death and later told a bbc producer that I hoped the inquest into his death would be credible.
I was horrified that I could actually harbor suspicions-ones that were also being expressed by others-that a democratic government might actually do bodily harm to a political opponent. I laughed it off for my friends and pointed out that my golf handicap had gone down two strokes in the two and a half weeks of my enforced vacation. And I rationalized that in situations like the one in which I now found myself, it was important to be either so visible that your adversaries would be among the first to be blamed should anything out of the ordinary happen to you, or so invisible that nobody really knew who you were.
That same week, on Thursday, July 17, David Corn called to alert me that what Novak had done, or at least what the person who had leaked Valerie's name to him had done, was possibly a crime, in that it might represent a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Corn then published a detailed explanation of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation, understood all the legalities involved.
Toward the end of that week, network producers and television correspondents were calling with rapidly mounting frequency. We had clearly entered a new phase. The questions were no longer about whether or not Valerie was CIA; rather, they sought to uncover some supposedly as-yet-unexplained link between the two of us and the trip to Niger.
Over the weekend, the calls became more insistent and more pointed. And the sources being cited by the reporters were consistently "White House officials or senior White House officials," so I could only conclude that the decision to push the story had been made at a high level in the administration. At that point, I knew that I would have to address the issue more publicly.
NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who had been guest-hosting Meet the Press when I'd been on the show two weeks earlier, reached me at home on the Sunday night after Novak's article appeared to ask for my reaction to "what White House sources were telling her about the real story being not the sixteen words but Wilson and his wife." I agreed to do an interview with her the following day in my office. Although I had planned not to appear on any television shows prior to Thursday, July 24, when I was scheduled to do The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I felt I had no choice but to try to stop the White House from continuing to push this canard.
The principal question remained unanswered: Who had so badly served the president? Who Valerie was and what she did, or who I was and what I did, were merely the administration's means of obfuscating the real issue and confusing the public. The White House was  trying to fling dust into the eyes of the press and public while descending into what a Republican staffer on the Hill later called a "slime-and-defend" mode.
On Monday morning, July 21, I sat down with Andrea and answered her questions. I was scrupulous in speaking about Valerie only hypothetically; I was careful to qualify my statements and to use the subjunctive: "If she were as Novak alleged, then. . . ." In response to Andrea's questions regarding statements made by White House officials about Valerie's professional life and its connection to me, I noted that the sources of the original leaks from the administration to Novak might have violated the law.
When the interview aired on the Monday evening news, NBC had systematically edited out every one of my qualifiers regarding Valerie's status, no doubt because of time constraints. They thus substantively changed the tenor of the interview and gave CIA lawyers cause to briefly consider whether or not I myself might have been in violation of the same law as the senior administration officials who had originally leaked the information about Valerie to Novak. I later called Andrea to request a copy of the full interview, so as to be able to defend myself, but nbc policy disallows providing transcripts of interviews in their unedited versions. I asked Andrea therefore to make sure that the full interview was preserved on tape in the event legal questions arose in the future. She agreed to do so.
That afternoon I received the call from Chris Matthews tersely informing me that Karl Rove had entered the fray with the comment that my wife was "fair game." To make a political point, to defend a political agenda, to blur the truth that one of the president's own staffers had scripted a lie into the president's mouth, one of the administration's most senior officials found it perfectly acceptable to push a story that exposed a national security asset. It was appalling.
The next morning I appeared on the Today show. Katie Couric was the interviewer. Unfortunately, I was on remote location, in Washington-my one chance to sit face-to-face with "America's sweetheart," and all I could see was the unblinking eye of the camera in front of me. At least the spot was televised live, so the hypotheticals that I used to qualify what I said about Valerie were not edited out. Again I made the point that the leak might well have been a violation of the law.
Although I received hundreds of phone calls from the national and international press in subsequent days, not once did I again hear a reporter cite White House sources in relation to that particular story. In the weeks ahead, the attacks from the White House reverted to more typical forms of character assassination.

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews

The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat's Memoir: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity 3.4 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 18 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
What an insight to the way our government 'works'. Joseph Wilson's indepth analysis and detailed encounter on how our government irresponsibly handled their priveledged power and jeopardized security is appalling. As an American, I am appalled and as a Republican I am ashamed. I am still in the midst of this memoir and I am enthralle with it now as I was with the preface. This is a must read, an eye opener, and is a pertinent current event we are still dealing with, and will continue to deal with, for years to come.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This can be a good read if you like to read about the nuts and bolts of being a diplomat. But his basic premise, and the only reason anyone would read this book seems to have been a lie... The British and the Senate have finally released reports on the fated 16 words that bush used in the State of the Union address saying that Saddam was trying to get uranium from Niger, which is what started Joe on his quest. To make a long story short, Joe was the liar! He went to Nigeria, but he in no way refuted British intelligence's claim that Saddam had tried to buy uranium from them. Not to mention the fact that one of the only reasons he was there was because his wife recomended him to be there. Then it was HE who started to twist the facts to meet HIS criteria (he didn't want the war, and this president, so he tried very hard to convince himself, and others, that Saddam wasn't a threat) This book could go down in political history as one of the more ironic titles, it will be fun to see who the apologists are and who owns up to buying into the hype BEFORE the facts came out? He should have been satisfied to hate Bush for any of a number of reasons, he didn't have to make anything up.
Guest More than 1 year ago
One of the greatest surprises emanating from this tightly written and immensely entertaining book by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson is the fact that he spins so wide and long a tale about his life's adventure, and chooses not to concentrate as much on the more immediate predicament surrounding his own misadventure to Niger in search of some evidence regarding the alleged attempt by Iraqis to buy 'gold-cake' on the black market from sources inside that country. I was spellbound by his narrative of his years within the Foreign Service, especially as it pertained to his time assigned to Baghdad in the months leading up to the 1991 Gulf War. Those of us who admire men who can traverse the slippery slopes between academia and the real world politics of the late 20th century will enjoy the anecdotes Wilson spins in recounting his some thirty years of involvement within the public domain, years spent admirably serving the country. It is within the context of this long and honorable service that one winces at the account of how he and his wife, an operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, come to find themselves lodged in the reckless cross-hairs of an administration scorned and looking for political revenge. Wilson, of course, famously denied the allegations that President Bush had stated that he was not aware of the fact that the alleged Iraqi effort to buy yellow-cake uranium on the black market was a hoax, one based on a very bad attempt at forging the relevant documents. Instead, Wilson insisted he had dutifully reported the hoax to proper authorities, up to and including Vice President Dick Cheney's staff. So the idea that the administration was under the erroneous impression that the alleged incident was credible simply was not true, according to Wilson. Thus, Mr. Bush's unfortunate use of the allegation in the January 2003 State Of The Union address to the nation amounted to a deliberate misleading of the public regarding Iraq and its actions leading up to the decision to invade later that year. It is certainly true that Mr. Wilson may have his own anti-Bush political agenda that he is attempting to forward with this book, and it may be true that he has taken sides with the Democratic Party in an election year. Yet no one has yet refuted the basic claims he has made in the book; namely that people within the administration deliberately and provocatively exposed his wife's name to the public by leaking the fact that she was a CIA agent to veteran columnist Robert Novak. Why Novak would then take it upon himself to recklessly endanger the woman by printing her name for any potential foe to learn is simply beyond comprehension. To me this was a despicable act for which Mr. Novak should be punished, regardless of his journalistic cover. This is a great book, one that will be far more enjoyable than anyone has a right to expect from a tome supposedly written and focused on current events. Enjoy
Guest More than 1 year ago
I cannot wait for this book to come out in April. This story is the 'reality who-done-it' of the year. A former ambassador goes to Africa to determine if some intelligence, later cited in the State of the Union by Bush, is true or false. He determines it is false and tells that to the administration. Using that information we go to war to stop Hussein in Iraq. Someone in the administration releases the name of an undercover CIA agent, the ambassador's wife, and the story is told in the column of a popular newspaper columnist. The background of this story would not be considered as a proposal for a fiction novel and it is all true. As I wrote, I cannot wait.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Guest More than 1 year ago
It took only two years to let history confirm the dubious claims of Ambassador Wilson's book. Not only did the Butler commission confirm that Iraq indeed approached officials in Niger for enriched uranium, but it was actually a State Department official, Richard Armitage who 'outed' Wilson's wife.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Prior to reading this book, I had many ideas about this administration, and their objectives. There was no doubt in my mind and Mr Wilson confirmed that one of the goals of this president was to effect a regime change in Iraq. It was almost as if this president was on a mission to finsish the job his father did not do. The other tragic aspect of this whole affair is how this Reublican administration (including Mr. Giuliani) have used 9/11 as a pre text to engage in war. Mr. Wilson should be applauded for writing such a book not only for the uncovering of his wife, but also for describing his life as a diplomat in the unknown continent of Africa. This man should be thanked by our leaders , rather than attacked for his duty to our country during the days leading up to Desert Storm. Perhaps this president of ours and his henchmen should take a lesson from Joe Wilson.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Mr. Wilson is extremely successful as making himself appear to be more than he is. What he is is someone who wants to continue to be in public view and is pretty willing to do what it takes to get there. Hope all of you are around when he (standing next to T. Kennedy, Kerry, H. Clinton, Reid, Boxer, Durbin and others) apologize for their words of hate - Oh, yawn - that was a crazy dream (waking up in the middle of the apology)!
Guest More than 1 year ago
Sorry to all those who read this book and thought it great. July 9th, 2004 Wilson was found to have lied about everything. This book is completely worthless now because of that report.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This book raises even more questions about the IRAQ issue. I think this book helps to put matters in perspective. When compared to Bob Woodard's plan of attack, it will definitely leave the reader wondering. Looking at the IRAQ issue from an objective point of view, the fact that there are unanswered questions is disturbing. This book high lights those questions, and until the questions are answered, it will always cast doubt on what really was the reason that lead us to war!!!
Guest More than 1 year ago
the book is good
Guest More than 1 year ago
what another marvelous read this time by ambassador wilson, and what our beloved president and staff almost did to his wife-cia agent! they could have got her killed. why?? because ambassador wilson spoke out at the start of this iraqui war, initiated by mr. bush as a vendetta for his dad-hussein had attempted to take out gwb's dad so this fool hearty prez. went after sudam, rather than osama! it is a great read, very frightening because all of this is real! what's it going to take to get this utter doofus and all his staff out of the white house before it's too late for all of us?? please do vote responsibly in november and god help us!
Guest More than 1 year ago
again, the deceitful bush administration has literally tried and succeeded in destroying the life of one of their top cia agents, because her husband could not stay silent any longer on the iraq situation! this is the most frightening book yet on the lying cowardly staff team behind mr. bush! they seem to stop at nothing to cover up or shut up anything/anyone that dares to speak against what they have done! this is a must read for every voter in this country who still longs for the truth as well as an honest president-something we sorely lack now!
Guest More than 1 year ago
It's about time we got to the bottom of this and someone has. Wilson reveals the true nature of The Bush White House
Guest More than 1 year ago
When all is told ..not only will this administration be remembered for its outright lies to build a war. And, sadly the loss of american lives..jobs ..and respect within the global community. This president will be known to all As the WORST since HERBERT HOOVER. Remember colin powell with the pictures of the WMD's.. Remember Richard Clarke...REMEMBER 1973. The ghost of Nixon LIVES....... for evey year george bush has been in power it will take 4 years to recover from all that the smirking chimp has done to average americans.... Stand up and make your vote count this fall. Please for the sake of all humanity.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This guys policital agenda is made more suspect by his timing during an election year.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This book is simply writings from a man with a huge left-wing agenda. He could care less about our economy.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Too bad Joe cannot tell the truth. His wife was not a covert agent ( posing on magazine covers is covert? ). Joe was NOT an ambassador, he was more like a high class janitor/handyman/manager of the ambassador building.