[Burkeman1]

Well don't worry. The story is now Wilson. It seems he is a "Bush hater" and not 100 percent behind the President. Thus everything he says is a lie. Funny how Clinton folks would point out that their critics were "Clinton Haters" while they ignored the facts as well.

[nopardons]

Wilson started under Carter. His report, if you'd only read carefully, never made it up the ladder.

Can't you at least attempt to see beyond your Bush hatred, even once in a while ? :^)

[kattracks]

The story is now Wilson. It seems he is a "Bush hater" and not 100 percent behind the President. Thus everything he says is a lie.

Yes, Wilson now is part of the story, and his backround is relevant.

How do you reconcile that it's reported that President Bush never saw Wilson's report, yet Wilson talks about the Bush team "misrepresenting the facts," and asking, "What else are they lying about?"

Which "facts" are being ignored?

[William McKinley]

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?