[cyncooper]

You are right, something isn't adding up here.

From your link:

When, despite all this, President Bush used this canard in his state-of-the-union address on January 28, 2003, Wilson faced a choice not unfamiliar to just-retired government officials. He could sit comfortably and smirk over brandy with friends in Georgetown parlors, or he could speak truth to power.

Conscience won. In a New York Times article on July 6, Wilson blew the whistle on the Iraq-Niger hoax, adding that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

~snip~

This completely ignores Joseph Wilson's public utterances and writings between January 23 and July 6. Why did Wilson choose not to "speak truth to power" given these opportunities?

For example:

Republic or Empire?, February 13, 2003

and he appeared on PBS to discuss Iraq

NOW with Bill Moyers, February 28, 2003

Nary a word about his alleged concerns about the already given SOTU Address. In fact, Wilson is asked about the issue of WMD, and *he references the SOTU speech*, so he cannot claim he wasn't aware of its content at the time this interview was given:

EXCERPT:

MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. I…

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He's coming to kill me. He doesn't care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm.

~snip~

[cyncooper]

Correction to my previous post: My typo of January 23 should be January 28.

Point stands, as Wilson was freely opining in February and had cleary heard the SOTU Address, yet did not raise his "concerns" about yellowcake or any statements in that speech. And this was on the advent of war.

Now we find that there was some anti-war documentary being cobbled together during this time-frame?

[Dolphy]

Good point. I once believed that someone blew in the career bureaucrat's ear and he couldn't resist the big lights and opportunity on the world stage that his career never quite afforded him. Now it seems this could have been more carefully staged than I had imagined. At the moment my greatest hope is that the current investigation will blow their cover as innocent patriots. Heck, that group I mentioned, (Intelligence Professionals) is on record as requesting current intelligence professionals to break the law and come forward as whistle blowers.