Replies

Like the Wilson family’s forlorn reaction to having media attention and a book deal thrust upon them, neither was the Plame/Wilson decision to go to Niger to check out the yellowcake uranium what it seemed. The duo set out to spike the Niger uranium story from the first. Upon hearing the CIA had opened an investigation into whether Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase ingredients for a doomsday device from the sub-Saharan African nation, Plame lined up her hubby for the trip, knowing his political disposition. Upon telling Wilson of his assignment, she referred to the to the Niger claim as “this crazy report.” Inspector Wilson then, by his own account, spent “eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people.” Despite his grueling interrogations, often conducted at poolside, he did not find anything whatever of value. He then went home and held his fire for months after President Bush cited the possible Niger yellowcake deal to write his op-ed. Wilson then claimed the documents Bush used to prove the yellowcake connection were forged, because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.” However, the CIA didn’t have those files until eight months after Wilson’s African vacation. Wilson sheepishly stated he may have “misspoken.” The Officials Who Knew Not Joseph “Misspoken” could designate every remark Wilson has ever made. His entire public testimony is a tear of lies.

I know this theory about a Wilson/Plame "left-wing plot" is popular here, but I'm afraid it is much more prosaic than that.

Yesterday's Washington Post story on the State Department memo says that the memo laid out that State had objected to Wilson's trip to Niger in the first place. State thought it had enough information in 2002 to refute the theory that Iraq had bought or tried to buy uranium ore from Niger. There was no need for a Wilson/Plame "plot" to gin up a bogus report to refute the Iraq/Niger claim. State was already saying this to the White House and the CIA knew it.

So why did the CIA send Joe Wilson to Niger anyway, over the objections of the State Department? Why was his report given in person and not in writing? Why did he wait for five months after the State of the Union to start peddling his story that the President was lying and he had the truth? If he and his wife were so hell-bent on undermining the President, why did Wilson not go public the day after the SOTU?

This theory does not add up. What does add up is that Joe Wilson had business dealings in Niger, he needed to cover them up, and he got his wife to push him for a trip there. He found nothing because he went there for another reason, to cover his own ass. His report was crap and the CIA put it on a shelf. Then the Kerry campaign found Wilson and together they drummed up the whole story that Bush was lying, and they sold it to the NYT and Washington Post to embarrass Bush in the middle of the campaign.

Wilson and Plame's contributions to Al Gore are easily explained. Wilson worked for Al Gore in the Senate. I'm sure he thought Gore was a great guy and would be a great President. Gore's staffers were very loyal to him. Gore probably got Wilson his gig at the White House. Doesn't mean Wilson is a left-wing fanatic. He doubtless did not think much of Bush, but his "Bush is lying about Iraq and uranium" story was a total invention by the Kerry campaign. It's made him a darling of the left and a fixture on the liberal cocktail party circuit, so of course he is sticking with it.

"What does add up is that Joe Wilson had business dealings in Niger, he needed to cover them up, and he got his wife to push him for a trip there. He found nothing because he went there for another reason, to cover his own ass. His report was crap and the CIA put it on a shelf. "

I'm curious as to who paid for the trip and who Joe Wilson was working for (was he a fed employee - reeks of nepotism if so and if a contractor - conflict of interest on Plame!)
Either way him going on the trip, with her prodding, is bizarre.

Why did he wait for five months after the State of the Union to start peddling his story that the President was lying and he had the truth? If he and his wife were so hell-bent on undermining the President, why did Wilson not go public the day after the SOTU?

He waited four months - from January to May. In January, 2003 immediately after the SOTU, Wilson addressed a conference at UCSB on Iraq (he was a graduate of UCSB). The speech he gave at that meeting reveals a bellicose Wilson, full of sound and fury against Saddam Hussein, and fully convinced that he has WMD...and will use them.

In February, 2003, Wilson authored an op-ed for the LATimes echoing these same themes.

However, in early May, Wilson was a.) hired by the Kerry campaign, b.) attended a Democrat Senatorial Policy Conference and c.) began leaking another story -- initially to Nicholas Kristof of the NYTimes (whom he had met at the aforementioned conference).

Between January and May, 2003, our friend Amb. Joseph C. Wilson IV (ret.) did a complete 180 on Iraq -- almost certainly out of political opportunism.

The Democrats and the MSM naturally know all this, but its not in their interest to have it known. So, they ignore his history...