Replies

Joe up. Says he found no evidence there was truth to the allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium.

BUT HE'S LYING AGAIN.

here we have the reason why the left pretended to be upset about the outting of a non-covert CIA employee; Wilson was lying to the American public that Bush lied and that served the Democrat's purpose. Never mind the fact that it is Wilson who lied:

The panel found that Wilson's report, "rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, actually bolstered the case for most intelligence analysis."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39834-2004Jul9

To this day, British intelligence maintains that Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa, recently underlined by a report from The Financial Times of London. The British government states "European intelligence officers have now revealed... human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger." The New York Times paraphrased the above with a clear-cut story titled: "Intelligence Backs Claim Iraq Tried to Buy Uranium." The essay leaves no doubt as to the claim of Bush in January 2003 that Saddam Hussein was not only was trying to procure uranium, but had been for years.
http://www.nytimes.com/financialtimes/business/FT1087373295002.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Wilson misled the Washington Post in June 2003, when he told the paper that the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." In fact, Wilson had never seen the reports.

When the Senate committee staff asked Wilson how he could have come to that conclusion, Wilson replied that he may have "misspoken" (See first paragraph) to reporters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39834-2004Jul9