[And More: The Epilogue to the book provides some more background information, including a reference to a short first marriage of VPW though Joe Wilson in his own book says theirs was her only one.
It also discusses an earlier trip he took to Niger on the behalf of the CIA for a different reason, which she alludes to briefly. Joe Wilson did not mention it in his own book, apparently per a confidentiality agreement.]
A chapter on her postpartum depression was a striking sidebar, especially since she is largely a private person. When she noted how hard it was to admit she was not doing well, even to a doctor, it was a striking moment. She was on NPR a few months ago to discuss the matter and it is striking that at the turn of the 21st Century that someone as educated and informed as she would be so blindsided by things. But, unfortunately, that turns out to happen more than one likes in various areas.
Since I decided to say a bit more about the book (I have yet to re-read* Laura Rozen's Epilogue, which discusses some of the stuff VPW could not openly write about), a bit on First Amendment issues. I'm sure I talked about this at the time, but one issue that arose is two reporters' right to protect their sources (Rove and Libby) during the investigation. Protecting sources is secured by law in some fashion (to my knowledge) in all states (to various degrees) but one while the federal government does not have a specific law on the matter, only certain policies to take the matter into consideration.
This is a hard call but I'm inclined to think protecting sources to some degree should be protected by law and I'm sympathetic to the dissent view in Branzburg v. Hayes. This need not require an absolute bar and protecting Rove and Libby, who aided and abetted what amounted to a conspiracy to out Valerie Plame Wilson, is not a great example of the principle at stake. Putting aside the need to release information to a grand jury or some such situation, which like applying laws equally to certain religious groups (an imperfect but valid comparison, I think), can itself be seen as a special exception. The best case scenario is when a source has to be protected to promote the truth, letting out the name of such a whistle-blower putting him or her (ah the irony) at risk.
Yeah, not the case here -- the two miscreants here had the implicit support of the President and Vice President of the United States and the reporters (one after Libby signed a waiver -- apparently, it wasn't good enough) were in fact hindering the promotion of the truth. The two made themselves as martyrs, Matt Cooper somewhat more sympathetic than someone who was a shill of the administration for quite some time. Absolutism might cover even this since the "greater good" warrants it, but beyond legal implications, on principle, it's hard to give either much support. The press here and other places held back the truth.
The more troubling First Amendment matter was the CIA over-redacting Wilson's book. I referenced this in an earlier discussion (see link in last entry), but basically it seems that there was a double standard here given the freedom found in some other former CIA agents' accounts. Her lawsuit on the matter ended with an appellate loss [video of VPW interview included] after the completion of the book. A basic concern was her actual years in the agency, which led other stuff to be blacked out too since it helped inform the reader about that detail. The book has the information -- an epilogue provides information -- but it cannot come from her own hand.
She signed a secrecy waiver but the First Amendment warrants some rationality here. Her husband's book (she partially quotes it to let us know where to look but the part that says she worked there for twenty years is redacted, even though it again is a quote and we can just look it up) and even the Congressional Record (apparently via oversight) has the details. As the concurring opinion noted, even if the CIA is technically right, they really are only hurting themselves by making such an issue of it. Information cited (vetted by the same people!) by her diplomat husband and in the Congressional Record is simply not a reasonable thing not to let her include. She submitted herself to agency review. The principle was followed. This is just gratuitous b.s.
One other post-publication matter is a civil damages suit. It too failed (like so many attempts to get some justice for Bush Administration overreaching) for procedural reasons and (again, ah the irony) since it might (to quote an article) "involve the disclosure of sensitive intelligence information." Pick your most apt literature reference. The Wilsons, however, were realistic about their chances throughout and the litigation (like the Libby prosecution) alone brought a lot of truths out. As in other cases, the justice that resulted might be of a limited nature, but such is the way of the world. The battle continues all the same.
---
* I don't re-read stuff that often. Sometimes on Amazon, I see reviews that say such and such book is not that good, don't plan to re-read it. Do people often re-read stuff? I guess certain books. I re-read Around The World In Eighty Days a few times, for instance, as well as re-reading a few non-fiction books (including recently).
So much stuff to read that something has to be rather good and/or important to re-read.
It also discusses an earlier trip he took to Niger on the behalf of the CIA for a different reason, which she alludes to briefly. Joe Wilson did not mention it in his own book, apparently per a confidentiality agreement.]
Ms. Wilson dedicates a chapter to the birth of her children and her experience with postpartum depression. She describes bouts of sobbing uncontrollably, as well as paralyzing anxiety and panic attacks. Even though she had a demanding career and had undergone challenging CIA training and assignments overseas, she wrote that during that period “my abilities to cope, problem solve and adjust to new situations, abilities that had served me so well, were beyond my reach.”Like a good movie has various angles, a good book often does too. The Wilsons each wrote a book and part of the reason why they were so readable was because of the diverse aspects of their lives. We are not just reading about a diplomat or CIA agent, interesting enough, or even the political stuff arising from the outing, but other details too.
A chapter on her postpartum depression was a striking sidebar, especially since she is largely a private person. When she noted how hard it was to admit she was not doing well, even to a doctor, it was a striking moment. She was on NPR a few months ago to discuss the matter and it is striking that at the turn of the 21st Century that someone as educated and informed as she would be so blindsided by things. But, unfortunately, that turns out to happen more than one likes in various areas.
Since I decided to say a bit more about the book (I have yet to re-read* Laura Rozen's Epilogue, which discusses some of the stuff VPW could not openly write about), a bit on First Amendment issues. I'm sure I talked about this at the time, but one issue that arose is two reporters' right to protect their sources (Rove and Libby) during the investigation. Protecting sources is secured by law in some fashion (to my knowledge) in all states (to various degrees) but one while the federal government does not have a specific law on the matter, only certain policies to take the matter into consideration.
This is a hard call but I'm inclined to think protecting sources to some degree should be protected by law and I'm sympathetic to the dissent view in Branzburg v. Hayes. This need not require an absolute bar and protecting Rove and Libby, who aided and abetted what amounted to a conspiracy to out Valerie Plame Wilson, is not a great example of the principle at stake. Putting aside the need to release information to a grand jury or some such situation, which like applying laws equally to certain religious groups (an imperfect but valid comparison, I think), can itself be seen as a special exception. The best case scenario is when a source has to be protected to promote the truth, letting out the name of such a whistle-blower putting him or her (ah the irony) at risk.
Yeah, not the case here -- the two miscreants here had the implicit support of the President and Vice President of the United States and the reporters (one after Libby signed a waiver -- apparently, it wasn't good enough) were in fact hindering the promotion of the truth. The two made themselves as martyrs, Matt Cooper somewhat more sympathetic than someone who was a shill of the administration for quite some time. Absolutism might cover even this since the "greater good" warrants it, but beyond legal implications, on principle, it's hard to give either much support. The press here and other places held back the truth.
The more troubling First Amendment matter was the CIA over-redacting Wilson's book. I referenced this in an earlier discussion (see link in last entry), but basically it seems that there was a double standard here given the freedom found in some other former CIA agents' accounts. Her lawsuit on the matter ended with an appellate loss [video of VPW interview included] after the completion of the book. A basic concern was her actual years in the agency, which led other stuff to be blacked out too since it helped inform the reader about that detail. The book has the information -- an epilogue provides information -- but it cannot come from her own hand.
She signed a secrecy waiver but the First Amendment warrants some rationality here. Her husband's book (she partially quotes it to let us know where to look but the part that says she worked there for twenty years is redacted, even though it again is a quote and we can just look it up) and even the Congressional Record (apparently via oversight) has the details. As the concurring opinion noted, even if the CIA is technically right, they really are only hurting themselves by making such an issue of it. Information cited (vetted by the same people!) by her diplomat husband and in the Congressional Record is simply not a reasonable thing not to let her include. She submitted herself to agency review. The principle was followed. This is just gratuitous b.s.
One other post-publication matter is a civil damages suit. It too failed (like so many attempts to get some justice for Bush Administration overreaching) for procedural reasons and (again, ah the irony) since it might (to quote an article) "involve the disclosure of sensitive intelligence information." Pick your most apt literature reference. The Wilsons, however, were realistic about their chances throughout and the litigation (like the Libby prosecution) alone brought a lot of truths out. As in other cases, the justice that resulted might be of a limited nature, but such is the way of the world. The battle continues all the same.
---
* I don't re-read stuff that often. Sometimes on Amazon, I see reviews that say such and such book is not that good, don't plan to re-read it. Do people often re-read stuff? I guess certain books. I re-read Around The World In Eighty Days a few times, for instance, as well as re-reading a few non-fiction books (including recently).
So much stuff to read that something has to be rather good and/or important to re-read.