Everyone who can do research, or writing to editors and reporters, please keep after the whole Wilson-Corn-Plame-gate scandal because there is FAR FAR more to this than we have been told so far.... and the bloviating Wilson must be exposed for the charlatan he is. Far more importantly, if this is (as seems plausible) an attempt by Plame or others to manipulate the US election with false stories, that is HUGE! duh.....
We need to be all over the forged documents aspect, what did Wilson know and when/HOW did he know it? Did his wife leak classified info to him in their pillow talk (more likely with complete malice aforethought as a co-conspirator)? Is Valerie Plame a leaker to Judith Miller and/or other reporters, was Valerie manipulating this story, and even worse are there larger players such as the French, Saudis, etc. pulling the strings behind the curtain??
We already know much about Wilson's 'report' and subsequent op-ed column (not to mention his book) is a fraud - he never should have been sent on this 'mission' and his report was bogus and he never should have pretended to the public that his conversations over "sweet mint tea" could ever possibly disprove anything about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger.
Yet, most of the media has totally failed to investigate the grave problems with the original Wilson report and then his attendance at caucus of Democratic pols in May 2003 where he first met Nicholas Kristof and began his bloviating to the media. What are Wilson's ties and contacts with various reporters and Democratic Party figures, especially in May-June-July 2003 as the story unfolded?? Was his wife present when he met Nick Kristof and was she already helping to 'blow' any cover she may have had by cooperating with him in his madcap adventures with the media??
Every reporter who might have received info from Wilson BEFORE the David Corn column appeared identifying Valerie Plame as a secret CIA agent needs to be pressed to fess up - once Wilson is shown to be a liar and manipulator of the story, there is no ethical claim for various reporters to continue to protect him as a source, is there? I would think that journalistic ethics should require that reporters unmask and debunk a source who has been shown to be lying to and manipulating them.
In addition to the fact that Wilson had not the slightest competence or experience as an investigator, his original NY Times op-ed was deeply flawed by his assumption that anything he heard in his days in Niger could possibly disprove Iraqi interest in Niger uranium. No one in the media seems to be noticing that Wilson changed the standard from whether there was any Iraqi interest in uranium (all that was asserted in the reference to British intelligence in the infamous "16 words" of the Bush SOU address) to whether there had been actual SALE of uranium. Even the latter could not be disproved by Wilson's sessions over sweet mint tea, and he certainly could not disprove whether there had been any secretive Iraqi approaches about uranium - Wilson's account assumes that some official(s) in Niger, involved in any discussion of illegal uraniums sales (possibly smuggling for private gain??), would simply volunteer this information to a visting US former diplomat. It is preposterous on the face of it that Wilson's mission could possibly settle the policy and intelligence debate, yet he has gone on now for 2+ years pretending that he, Joe Wilson, established the facts and the WH ignored them.
Wilson's report only added some 2nd-hand support to the concerns about Iraq and Niger uranium, though he was too dense to realize it, because he did relay the information that "Baghdad Bob" himself had tried to initiate trade talks with Niger.... since Niger has exactly ONE export that could be of any potential interest to Saddam (besides uranium, the other options for Niger's potentially booming trade relations with Baghdad are "livestock, cowpeas, onions"). Just think, maybe they wanted the uranium, not the cowpeas!
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ng.html
Now we need someone to find out whether Valerie had any further role in this boondoggle - i.e., did she go on the trip (was it a taxpayer funded scam), did she have anything to do with producing his report, did she use him to further any sort of position she was taking within the CIA vis-a-vis WMDs???? Perhaps this was taking bureaucratic warfare among analysts within the CIA to a new level, especially if it was Valerie who termed the idea of Iraq seeking Niger uranium a "crazy report" when she first recommended her husband for the mission....
OR, perhaps Jack Kelly's suggestion is correct and this whole manipulated story was all about throwing the 2004 election to Kerry? It all fits - now we have to piece together all the details and raise hell, because the MSM certainly won't pursue the story without massive pressure.
Actually, its worse. They did volunteer to him that the Iraqis had been visiting. Meaning, that he knew Bush was telling the truth when he accused him of lying.
The Baghdad Bob reference may or may not be accurate. It is known that Wissam al Zahawie, a senior Iraqi ambassador had come calling, and some other Iraqi "businessmen" had been around.
Don't forget another suspicious fact often ignored: Wilson's "report" was given orally.
So which Democrat would benefit by exposing the Kerry campaign or perhaps Kerry himself?