I was googling posts on FR and found this post by CyberAnt talking about the exact same thing.
here's the url: CyberAnts post is number 59
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293203/posts?q=1&&page=51
Here's what CyberAnt said
>It was during one of these trips to London, where Bill Clinton >told Blair that he better dump Bush because if Blair didn't, it >could cost Blair his job. And .. I believe it was shortly after >that statement that the Wilson mess exploded in the media (which >is why I have always believed Hillary was involved in it). >Thank GOD Blair did not buy the threat.
I am still searching for the article of that encounter but others have thought of it too so there is something to it I think.
Some more from Cyberant
Here's the thread url.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441701/posts
Here's what CyberAnt said.
Also .. it was common knowledge that Blair and Bill Clinton had a few sharp words at a cocktail party in London - in the run up to the Iraq war. Clinton told Blair that if he continued to support Bush, Blair was going to lose his election. Right after that the Niger affair blew up. I find that too coincidental not to be related.
I said that about the Blair incident to say this: The Wilsons were very close friends with the Clintons - and the Wilsons did fundraisers for the Clintons. What if it was Hillary who plotted with Valerie to send Wilson on the trip to try to prove there was no yellow-cake - and thereby stop the war from happening ..?? Clinton's statement to Blair could be construed to mean that the Clintons already knew about the Wilson trip and that it was going to be used to try to discredit the intel on Iraq and thereby Blair and Bush would be discredited.
What if the person the NYT is trying to cover for is Hillary ..??
Note: i'm still searching for the articles about this cocktail party encounter.