Salon.com has an excellent piece by Joe Conason about former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, entitled “I Accuse,” upon the release of Wilson’s new book, “The Politics of Truth.” The article, as with the book, deals with Wilson’s revealing the Bush administration’s willful untruthfulness regarding the “16 Words,” in effect, Bush’s lie to the American people about the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium hoax–and the following smear campaign against Wilson, in which his wife was outed by the Bush administration as a CIA operative. Which, of course, is a federal felony.

Wilson reports on having been provided with a great deal of information by many people close to power, working out a timeline of when the Bush administration planned to attack him. Interestingly, it goes back before he wrote his now famous July 8th New York Times piece which signaled the greater public outrage against Bush. Earlier, on March 8th, he had said on CNN, “I think it’s safe to say that the U.S. government should have or did know that this report was a fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it in his report at the U.N. yesterday.” That apparently prompted Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, to start investigating Wilson so they could be ready to smear him when the time came:

Gleaned from all those crosscurrents of information, the most plausible scenario, and the one that I’ve heard most frequently from different sources, has been that there was a meeting in the middle of March 2003, chaired by either Scooter or the vice president — but more frequently I’ve heard chaired by Scooter — at which a decision was made to get a “work-up” on me. That meant getting as much information about me as they could: about my past, about my life, about my family. This, in and of itself, is abominable. Then that information was passed at the appropriate time to the White House Communications Office, and at some point a decision was made to go ahead and start to smear me, after my opinion piece appeared in the New York Times.

That smear campaign included the more-than-willing cooperation of well-known right-wing pundits and publications, for example Robert Novak and The Washington Times. If you look at the Washington Times article I just linked to, you’ll see how many of the smears were aimed at painting Wilson as a rabid left-wing Democrat with a partisan grudge–a common tactic used against most Republicans who formerly worked for Bush but later came out to tell the truth about him. But as with others in that group, such as Richard Clarke, the accusations of liberal affiliations are ludicrous–Wilson was a life-long Republican, from a long line of Republicans; Conason remarks on how Former Assistant Secretary of State Chester Crocker, Wilson’s superior in the Reagan administration, was “shocked” that Wilson was being painted as a leftist.

But just as the current Bush administration pushed Jim Jeffords out of the party, it–as well as Congressional Republicans–has made Joe Wilson doubt his party:

If you’re fiscally responsible, this is not your party. If you believe in a moderate foreign policy characterized by alliances, free trade and the ability to operate in an international environment, this is not your party. If you believe in limited federal government, this is not your party. If you believe that the government should stay out of your bedroom, this is very definitely not your party. In fact, I would argue that unless you believe in the American imperium, imposed on the world by force, or unless you believe in the literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, this is not your party.

Even at that, Wilson still does not harbor that great a grudge against Bush himself–rather he faults the people surrounding him. After all, Bush did say during the 2000 election that he would surround himself with people who would tell him what to do; Bush got into office with few if any Americans knowing any of the people who would truly be leading the country. And it has been evident from many sources of information that Bush is commonly led around by the nose by his senior staff, one example being his initial reaction to giving a third major tax giveaway to the wealthy: “Haven’t we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut’s gonna do it again.”

The only thing I can suggest is that this is a different crowd that surrounds this president. As most people know, the president is a captive of his team. People whom his father didn’t employ, or kept far away from the center of power, are now right at the center of power — including, of course, one of his father’s great rivals, Don Rumsfeld.

Another problem, of course, is the lapdog media. What isn’t right-wing and eagerly willing to help Bush, is apparently intimidated:

By and large the press, in reporting on this case, felt a genuine fear about this White House.

“Guantánamo” is now a metaphor for being cut off completely from access and sources. I’ve had any number of reporters who have talked to me about how even the most minor criticism of the administration led to phone calls to their editors from senior officials in the government. I think that’s a clear pattern of intimidation.

Overall, a very interesting interview, and a reminder that people very high up in the administration are not much more than immoral felons. The Plame affair may or may not come out before the election–it should, of course, as the administration should be judged by its actions, all of them. But it is also a reminder that Bush is not the only one wielding power in this administration; he is chiefly responsible, of course, but it is the people who surround him–Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice, Card, Rove, and their top staff who would also be “re-elected” in November. You vote for Bush, you vote for them as well.