“Peter Wickham’s CADRES Press Statement wiggles all over the place and for me raises far more questions than it answers.”
“…if the “Emboffs” (US Embassy personnel) took copious notes and had their tape recorders rolling over “several years” of meetings, Mr. Wickham might find the truth to be very inconvenient.”
submitted by “Sticky Wicket” as a comment via anonymous proxy.
A very sticky wicket, indeed, for Mr. Wickham, for there are several things about his press statement that sound wiggly and don’t sound square at all at all, starting with his last sentence:
“I have already contacted a representative at the US Embassy and discussed my concerns extensively with her and she has advised that they cannot discuss the contents of these documents since there is no certainty that the documents are authentic.”
Mr. Wickham states that the US Embassy said they cannot discuss the contents of these documents (the Wikileak US Embassy cable dated February 3, 2006 that is the subject of the controversy.) because “there is no certainty that the documents are authentic.”
That sounds like either the Embassy is not forthright, or Mr. Wickham. I’ll take Wickham at his word that this is what the Embassy told him but Mr. Wickham would know that this statement by the Embassy is untrue. The Embassy would have an original of the cable. They sent it! The cable has a reference number.
The Embassy could instantly compare their original cable and the one released by Wikileaks and printed at BFP. Instantly.
Mr. Wickham is no dummy. He knows the Embassy could verify the accuracy of the WikiLeaks cable instantly, so why is Mr. Wickham talking foolishness “there is no certainty that the documents are authentic.” ???
Governments all over the world are commenting on WikiLeaked documents that concern them and not one of the WikiLeaked documents has been said to be false or changed by WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks source.
Foolishness for Mr. Wickham to repeat “there is no certainty that the documents are authentic.” as if he or anyone else accepts that as a valid reason for the US Embassy to not comment. Foolishness for Mr. Wickham to imply that there is some doubt that the WikiLeaks cable is an accurate copy of what Ambassador Kramer sent.
The second statement that doesn’t sound square is:
“Specifically, I can state categorically, that I have NEVER met privately with former US Ambassador Mary Kramer, who is alleged to be the author of this cable.”
Nowhere in the WikiLeaked cable does it say that Mr. Wickham met “privately” with Ambassador Kramer. Is this a straw man put up by Mr. Wickham as a proof that Ambassador Kramer’s report is false? Mr. Wickham could have met with the Ambassador in the company of other Embassy personnel, or the information could have come to Ambassador Kramer through other Embassy personnel who Mr. Wickham briefed.
Mr. Wickham states that he recalls Ambassador Kramer meeting with ten journalists, but he does not “categorically” state this was the ONLY time he met her. Read his Press Statement again. Mr. Wickham’s Press Statement has lots of wiggle room in it in many places. Read it again.
The WikiLeaks cable states that Mr. Wickham met with “Emboffs” (Embassy Officers, Officials, Operatives?) “over the past several years to offer his views on a variety of issues.”
That is “Emboffs” as in PLURAL. More than one. It could mean two. It could mean “MANY” over the “several years.”
Mr. Wickham would know how many different Emboffs he met with, who, where, when and how frequently “over the past several years”, but he seizes on Ambassador Kramer without explaining the “Emboff” meetings at all. He doesn’t deny meeting with the “Emboffs”. Instead, Wickham ignores this inconvenient information and, like a magician doing a trick, says “Look at this bright shiny Ambassador in my hand”, hoping that the audience will concentrate on Mary Kramer and forget about his years of meetings with “Emboffs”.
I presume that each of these “Emboffs” would have written an account of the conversations with Mr. Wickham. That is the standard practice of Embassy personnel from anywhere. Read a Tom Clancy novel or Ambassador Kramer’s own book to confirm that!
Ambassador Kramer quotes what she says are Peter Wickham’s exact words…
“When you have been cussed out by Ralph you have really been cussed at,” said Wickham.
“Vincentian ganja is a big thing” in the Caribbean, said Wickham…
Ambassador Kramer also makes general statements such as…
“Wickham believes the ruling party flew about 400 people to St. Vincent from the U.S. for the recent election.”
“According to Wickham, the largest amount of money came from Leroy Parris, Chairman of CLICO Holdings Limited, a Barbados-based insurance and real estate company.”
Marijuana growers have considerable influence in St. Vincent, where they are not necessarily considered undesirables but can be quite prominent people, according to Wickham. He thinks there is some truth to the rumors that that certain individuals tied to the drug trade provided funding to Gonsalves’s ULP…
The word for word quotes and certainty of Ambassador Kramer’s report makes one wonder if there were some hidden tape recorders rolling at these “Emboff” meetings held “over the past several years”, doesn’t it?
Mr. Wickham states he “sought legal advice on my options regarding these allegations”. One hopes that if he did not say what is alleged and quoted in Ambassador Kramer’s report, that the truth may come forth.
However, if the “Emboffs” took copious notes and had their tape recorders rolling over “several years” of meetings, Mr. Wickham might find the truth to be very inconvenient.
The Ambassador’s report was from 2006. How many “Emboff” meetings has Mr. Wickham attended since 2006? What did he say to US Diplomats since 2006 that we don’t know about?
Peter Wickham’s CADRES Press Statement wiggles all over the place and for me raises far more questions than it answers.
It is a bit of a “sticky wicket” for Mr. Wickham, isn’t it?