And why did Joe Wilson's initial report AGREE with the intelligence analysis at the CIA---uh, the one saying there was likely a connection between Iraq and Niger and nukes---and now "they" are claiming they were being "forced" to support the war?
I think Joe Wilson's New York Times article was a calculated ploy to embarrass the Bush Administration. And he may have expected it would help get him a job in the next Democratic Administration. He worked for the NSC when Clinton was President.
Don't know. I'd like to know why Joe thought it prudent to change his story for the sake of the New York Times article.
On another subject, I'd like to know why no one could figure out Saddam was gaming the Oil for Food program, and bribing people and governments.