On April 30, the day his book, The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity -- A Diplomat's Memoir, was released, Ambassador Joseph Wilson met with a visitor in his office on Pennsylvania Avenue (decorated with a framed, handwritten note dated September 30, 1998, from George Bush Senior, saying, “You accomplished so much for our country.”). As Wilson fiddled with Iraqi worry beads (and clipped his nails), he explained what it's like to be a whistle-blower, why Karl Rove should be “frog-marched” out of the White House in handcuffs, and why, despite his “notoriety,” he got only $10,000 to write his book.

What do you hope to accomplish with the book?

I wanted it to be part of this year's political debate. Hell, the president himself said he wanted to run on his records, and I think that's appropriate. I have some views on his policies, and I'm happy to share them at this time. Two, I wanted to talk about a rich and varied career, which included an ambassadorial appointment from George Herbert Walker Bush. Three, I wanted to lay out a political philosophy that is part pragmatic and part stresses values -- which, ironically, led me to be a strong supporter of the first Bush administration and an even stronger opponent of the second one. Additionally, I wanted to talk about the exercise of civic responsibility -- why it's important to be able to stand up and hold our government accountable if we want our democracy to remain strong and vibrant. And, lastly, I wanted to tell the tale of going to Niger and what I found there. You know, a lot of people are curious about what it means to work overseas on behalf of their government; they may have dreamed about that exotic life. But there's not a lot of literature on what it means to be a practitioner of diplomacy in the field.

There's Graham Greene.

Yeah, and, hopefully, this updates the Graham Greene experience. I have great admiration for his writing style. If I could write like Graham Greene, I'd give up my day job.

Who leaked the information about your wife?

I understand the headline is, “Who Leaked the Name?” And, as I piece things together, it's pretty clear there was a concerted effort to do a workup on me -- essentially, an [intelligence] operation was done. That's why Valerie's name ended up in the hands of [columnist Robert] Novak two days after my article appeared in The New York Times [“What I Didn't Find in Africa,” July 6, 2003]. The launch of the investigation into the leak confirmed that somebody betrayed the national security of our country. From everything I've heard, I think it was centered in the office of the vice president, directed by [Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis] “Scooter” Libby, and coordinated by the communications office and the political office -- notably Karl Rove. Now, Rove may not have whispered in the journalist's ear. But he pushed the story for a week. He wanted to drag my spouse into the public square to humiliate and beat her in order to avenge himself on her husband, who had done nothing more than call on the government to be truthful. After all, I did not put those 16 words in the president's State of the Union address [“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”]. Had the president heeded my report, the two memos, and the one phone call to the national-security adviser, he might never had said it. But instead of disciplining the person who put the lie in the president's State of the Union address, Rove and others turned their sights on me. I think frog-marching Rove out of the White House in handcuffs would be an interesting outcome. Clearly, what he did was unethical -- and, frankly, un-American.

Do you have any second thought about the things you've said about Rove?

Absolutely not. I do regret that certain individuals in the government determined that their political agenda was more important than the national security of our country. And out of a desire to intimidate others from coming forward and speaking the truth -- or out of sheer revenge -- they decided to betray the country by exposing my wife's name.

What do you think about the investigation into the disclosure of your wife's name?

I have absolute confidence in both the special counsel and the FBI, and I know they're doing everything they can to get to the bottom of this. The fact they haven't gotten there indicates that people in the White House are stonewalling. The president said he wanted to get to the bottom of us, and yet nobody has stepped forward. So what does that mean? The president wasn't serious when he said that? He can't compel them to do it? Or his staff is so dismissive they feel they can be insubordinate?

Do you think Novak lied in his public statements?

Novak has changed his story so many times, I don't know what I think. But I do know that he bumped into somebody on Pennsylvania Avenue shortly before his article appeared and struck up a conversation. The stranger asked him about “this fellow Wilson.” Novak responded, “Wilson's an asshole, and his wife, Valerie, works for the CIA.”

Should Novak have been fired?

That's not up to me to say. Still, I ask myself, what did the inclusion of my wife's name and profession add to the article? It doesn't advance the story at all. And when he called the CIA and they tried to discourage him from printing the name of a CIA operative -- well, what part of “no” didn't he understand?

What do you think about the counterterrorism efforts of the Bush administration before September 11?

I agree completely with Dick Clarke -- that shifting our focus from al-Qaeda to Iraq and Afghanistan was a terrible diversion. As I wrote before the war, I knew that proceeding in Iraq the way we did would provide a great recruitment tool for al-Qaeda.

You've had some dealings with the media lately. What's your impression?

In the run-up to the Iraq War, the media was not sufficiently critical. But I don't blame them. There was a desire to rally around the flag. And I think those who were hell-bent on having a war -- which was essentially the invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq -- marketed their views brilliantly. There were very few people who were prepared to stand up and say, “This might not be the brightest idea we've ever had.”

Did the Bush administration really believe the claims it made before the war? Or was it lying -- or crazy?

It's increasingly clear they were deceitful. In the case of the uranium “yellowcake” in Niger, the evidence is clear: They were so hell-bent on getting that claim in the State of the Union address that they referenced another country's intelligence even when they knew they had the same information we did. Well, you have to conclude it was a deliberate effort to deceive the Congress, the United States, and the American people. The president now says the rationale for war was to change the dynamics in the Mideast and bring the Almighty's gift of freedom to the world -- at the barrel of a gun. The fact that we are now 700-plus dead soldiers, thousands of dead Iraqis and wounded Americans, and $150 billion into this adventure and we're just beginning to discuss it in those terms -- well, Americans are right to be disappointed in their government.

What should we do about Iraq?

I've said all along we need to bring more partners into it. But before we're going to get other partners, we need to demonstrate our own commitment. The only way to do that is with a massive investment in troops to stabilize the situation. Also, I think everybody in the Pentagon -- from Donald Rumsfeld on down -- ought to be fired. They have unnecessarily put our soldiers at risk.

Tell me about John Kerry.

I've endorsed, but I haven't morphed into, John Kerry. I want to have the freedom of my own ideas and the freedom to express them. Given some of the controversy my ideas have generated, I suppose the campaign probably prefers it that way.

You've worked as a diplomat for years. But you're very direct -- for example, you called Cheney “a lying son of a bitch.”

Did I call him that?

Well, The Washington Times [“Spouse of outed CIA officer signs on with Kerry,” February 14, 2004] says you did.

That's great. He probably reads that, too. If the shoe fits, wear it.

The language is not very diplomatic. Has this gotten you in trouble?

I guess the one time was in Iraq before the Gulf War. I was stepping into my car, and somebody asked what would happen if Saddam Hussein did anything to the American hostages. I said, “That might be casus belli.” A couple of hours later, I got a phone call from the State Department reminding me that, generally speaking, the president reserves the right to declare war. Still, I don't have any problem with being open and direct. I think this country needs a little more directness.

I would have thought that you'd get a huge advance for your book.

It was $10,000 and change -- enough to keep me in peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. In all fairness, I wouldn't have paid more than $10,000 for a four-page outline, either. They didn't even have a sort of writing sample. After we agreed I'd do the book, the whole story started to break. My agent said, “You can probably get a better deal on this now that you have some notoriety.” But I had an agreement, and that was fine with me. This has never been about money.

What does your wife think of the book?

She's read parts of it and had a veto over what I had to say, obviously. But I don't think she's read the whole thing from beginning to end. In fact, I'm not sure I have. Still, I think it's safe to say she likes it and thinks it reads well. Look, my wife is the most wonderful person I know. She is a pillar of strength and a dedicated government employee who still goes to work every day, trying to do her best. What the government has done to her is reprehensible, and I very much resent it.

Tara McKelvey is a Prospect senior editor.