Yes, the story
is Wilson, as it should be. Contrary to what Novak says here, he did not take a
"measured" stance on Iraq- he was a vocal opponent who was hob-nobbing with the radical fringes. He had no qualifications for the mission, being a diplomat not a spook, having no expertise in detecting forged documents, not being a weapons expert, etc. He injected himself into the story by writing an op-ed five months after the SOTU. It is reasonable to want to explore his motivations and how such an unqualified person (why was his wife not tagged for the mission, for example--she was much more qualified for the job) was sent on a job that the Democrats seem to feel was so vital?
Novak has missed some important points in this column, most particularly Wilson's anumus against the administration and his active work against the war.
I also find it interesting that Pincus wrote a story in the Washington Post, apparently from information he gleaned from either Wilson or his wife (my take on what Novak said, anyway). This means someone wanted this story to come out during the African trip.
Now, I ask myself this: how appropriate is it for the husband of one of the CIA's WMD people to be agitating against the war and writing op-ed pieces in the papers?