Now, assuming my view that it is not realistic, it could have several possible meanings. It could mean what you suggest - that this particular Nigerian is, in fact, an idiot for whatever he read into the "overture." Was this the only Nigerian that provided Wilson with any information? I don't know. It seems that your post assumes this. I don't really know that much about the details of his claims, so I don't know how you can say that his source for this claim being an idiot dispenses with anything else he may have heard or found.
The bottom line is that I was commenting on one aspect of the article - the involvement of a laughable character in international intrigue. I don't pretend for a second - on this issue or any other - that the entire universe of available positions or information is addressed in this article or in the entire printed record on the incident. Frankly, there is a lot missing - like the key part: why did the Nigerian "interpret the overture as an effort to purchase uranium." I mean, did B-Bob say he wanted to talk about trade while drawing the international symbol for radioactivity on a bar napkin? I don't know. But anyone who thinks they can blow open a whole story or assert "case closed" on an issue by pointing to some comment in a newspaper article gives far more weight to the accuracy and thoroughness of the media than I'm sure they would admit here.
For this conversation I take no position on whether it's "realistic". (Though I do find it somewhat odd that because he's "Baghdad Bob" you think he's inherently incapable of uttering the sentence "Can we make a deal for some uranium?") Let us just agree that it either (A) happened or (B) didn't.
If (A), then Bush's "16 words" are proven correct by Joe Wilson himself, despite Joe Wilson's earlier accusations.
If (B), then Joe Wilson and/or his source are thus proven unreliable, in which case we are left with no good basis for the "16 words" controversy to begin with.
That is all I am saying. Understand now?
Was this the only Nigerian that provided Wilson with any information? I don't know. It seems that your post assumes this.
Not at all. The super-sleuth Wilson may have had a zillion other sources (though I doubt it). All I assume is that this official in particular either (A) told Joe Wilson, on his initial trip, about this approach - and Wilson has therefore been lying to us ever since; or (B) said to Joe Wilson "nope, nobody approached me" - which claim Wilson then partially relied upon to spark the controversy - but now has changed his tune (in which case his reliability is suspect and the controversy has no merit).
Keep in mind that Iraq only needs to approach one Nigeran to make "the Niger claim" true. It doesn't need to approach ALL of them. So Wilson's other sources are immaterial if this guy is telling the truth. Or if he's not telling the truth how can we trust his initial claim "nobody approached me" in the first place?
Understand NOW?
But anyone who thinks they can blow open a whole story or assert "case closed" on an issue by pointing to some comment in a newspaper article [bla....]
To be perfectly honest I don't assert "case closed" based on this article. I believe that "Saddam sought uranium from Niger" was already known to be the truth by anyone with half a brain, based on many other sources, and that the main value of this particular story is to expose Joe Wilson as the disingenuous fool that he is. As for proving "the Niger claim" it's really sort of just icing on the cake.
P.S. Just so you know, uranium is BY FAR the primary export of Niger. Unless Iraq was interested in buying livestock (which comes in a distant second), the notion that they wanted uranium would have been the ONLY reasonable inference here. That should clear up your confusion about that.