Replies

"Wilson did little, issued a useless report, then went directly to the NY Times to get the biggest bang for his buck for his 15 minutes of fame associated with this "assignment"."

Excellent analogy of what probably actually occurred. How good of an investigation can you conduct in 8 days? I wonder if he even left the hotel.

I wonder if he even left the hotel.

I've read more than one op-ed that wondered the same thing. It's possible that he didn't do any more than have lunches with a few locals that he knew slightly.
This whole thing is very fishy. And I suspect that we're not ever supposed to get the truth. Allegations are so much more useful during a Presidential campaign. (and, no, that wasn't sarcasm)

Mr. Wilson's "investigation" is a classic case of a man whose mind had been made up using any opportunity to refute the justifications for our ever going to war.

By his own admission he first consulted with our ambassador to Niger, who felt "she had already debunked" the report of Niger's attempted sale. Mr. Wilson then spent eight days "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people." His conclusion: "It did not take long to conclude it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

Because Mr. Wilson, by his own admission, never wrote a report, we only have his self-serving op-ed article in the New York Times to go by. He also noted that "Niger formally denied the charges." He said there "should be" documents reporting on his unwritten briefings and that there should be a written summary of his views to the vice president ("which may have been delivered orally"), but that he has never seen any of these reports.

If we are to rely on this kind of sloppy tea-drinking "investigation" from a CIA-chosen investigator--a retired ambassador with a less than stellar record--then I would say that the CIA deserves some of the criticism it normally receives.--CASPAR W. WEINBERGER
Friday, July 18, 2003 12:01 a.m.
OJ

Just some background you know but others may not...and a good blog rundown as well.

See my #55. Wilson didn't go straight to the NY Times. Before war started he wrote a column for "The Nation" and also went on tv to speak with Bill Moyers.

Curiously, no mention at that time that the president had misrepresented the uranium story----and here Wilson was promoting an anti-war agenda and the president had JUST delivered the SOTU speech with the "16 words". You'd think Wilson, if he REALLY had a problem with what the president had said, would have made his case back in February.

Interesting, don't you think? It's almost like---oh, I don't know----this whole Wilson story was kind of cooked up or something!