Replies

"Before this is concluded I can see a few CIA employees taking early retirement."

So what's the punishment for lying about something that's integral to American foreign policy? Wilson's doing his speaking tour, Kerry's in the Senate, and some CIA people are going to take early retirement? And Libby's life and career have been ruined.

Take it easy, pop. He's not ruined, not yet. He hasn't even been tried.
"For those with an eye for such things, an accused man can be very attractive." Voltaire (paraphrasing)

This could be an opportunity to cure our ailing intelligence agencies, as well as vindicate Mr. Libby. I'm sure he's getting support from those who would like to get less politics and more intelligence gathering from Langley.
AFK gotta pay the bills

I was browsing through Wilson's book today, and a couple of things seemed odd: (1) It's very long (about 500 pages, plus index), much longer than the usual rushed-to-print book associated with a transient news story; and (2) only a small part of the book deals with the Niger uranium story, and this section is chronologically out of place with the rest of the book, i.e., it is placed up front, whereas the rest of the book deals with Wilson's career in chronological order. (By the way, Wilson came to the public's attention in July, 2003; the book came out in April, 2004, which leaves only about 8 months for writing and publication, IF the book was written after the Niger story broke.)

These facts suggest that Wilson had written most of this book prior to July, 2003, as a biography of his career, not as a response to the Niger flap. It is mainly a long, rambling account of his career and of his critique of the Bush administration. However, it appears that the Niger story might not have been part of the original narrative, and was stuck in only after it became a big issue in July 2003. In other words, Wilson himself might not have attached any great significance to his trip and his alleged findings until it became politically expedient to do so, coinciding with his involvement in the Kerry campaign.

When I first looked for his account of the Niger trip, I looked for it where it should be chronologically, but it wasn't there. Then I realized it was placed at the front of the book, suggesting it was an "add in" to a manuscript which did not originally include it.

Am I trying to make something out of nothing, or does anyone else see any significance to this? After all, maybe they just lifted the Niger section from its original spot and moved it up front because that was Wilson's claim to fame.