Replies

The story here is that he says he was hired by the CIA to check out the story. But he wasn't paid by the CIA, he went at his wife's suggestion, and he didn't submit a written report. His only written account of his trip is the op-ed piece he wrote.

The op-ed piece he wrote is an extended falsehood on several levels. The first falsehood is that he says he investigated uranium sales in Niger. That he most assuredly did not do. He asked the Niger government for their answer, and he parroted their answer. He did not investigate anything, he did not monitor shipments, he did not tap communications, he did not interview plant workers, he did not break into company files. There was no investigation.

So when he attacks the president based on his "investigation", he is lying.

His attack on the president is itself a sleight of hand, in which he refutes a charge the president did not make. Iraq's trade mission to Niger is public information. There was no need for a trip to Niger to verify a trade mission that was not a secret. His op-ed claims the president lied, because there was no sale. But the president made no such charge. So Wilson's "denial" is a non-denial, it is a propagandist's bait-and-switch tactic that would never work if we didn't collectively agree not to notice it. The press, of course, has collectively agreed not to notice.

Another lie is the lie of omission, in which he fails even to mention the trade mission, because of course to even mention it would blow a hole right through the middle of his case. The president did not lie, his charge was based on public information that Wilson does not deny because he can't deny it. So he ignores it.

He lied again when he claimed that a sale couldn't have taken place because the IAEA monitors the mines so closely that it would be impossible. But the IAEA says that they don't have the personnel to monitor the mines, and furthermore they don't have the legal basis for monitoring them. So, in other words, they aren't monitoring them in any effective sense at all.

So Wilson lied again.

And he apparently engaged in this pantomime charade at his wife's instigation. If the CIA is going to lend itself to backing this charade, then they should have to answer some questions themselves.

1. First, since when did the CIA appoint itself to engaging publicly in policy debates?
2. Why did they have to send a non-employee to investigate something that should have been a high priority?
3. What happened to their African assets? Have they none?
4.Why did that non-employee sent to investigate, not investigate?
5. And finally, why are they lending their aid and support to this charade?

The trade mission is not a secret, which means that the president's statement is not even controversial. The CIA is engaging in partisan politics, and their tactics are openly dishonest.

Your questions:
1. First, since when did the CIA appoint itself to engaging publicly in policy debates?
2. Why did they have to send a non-employee to investigate something that should have been a high priority?
3. What happened to their African assets? Have they none?
4.Why did that non-employee sent to investigate, not investigate?
5. And finally, why are they lending their aid and support to this charade?

I would like to add:
6. Who signed off in the CIA on sending Wilson?
7. Who authorized his reimbursement for expenses?
8. To whom did he report on his return?
9. What is his wife's job title?

I think that what is going on is that the wilsons are being set up (or are setting themselves up)as rosenburgs. "Those mean investigators are going after us because of what we said, not what we did - oh woe are we the innocent victims." And whatever the charges are that are filed will be met with - leftits response of - "They didn't do anything wrong, you are just going after them because of their political beliefs. McCarthyism! Witch hunt! Red scare!"

C-span also showed the hours long questioning of the British panel that investigated Iraq intell, particularly, the uranium claim. Very hostile quesioning, I might add.

They concluded unanimously that intell was NOT "sexed-up", and the uranium claim was a valid assessment. They said they had seen all intell for themselves.

Wilson smeared Cheney and Bush in a July op-ed, insinuating that Cheney sent him and ignored his report.

Cheney denied he knew Wilson or saw a report, all Cheney asked the CIA to do is look into the uranium intell.

Wilson then admitted he made no written report, and had an investigation over "tea" with officials.

In defense of Cheney and Bush, some, or one of their people, may have called reporters and probably said, "no we did not send him, we knew nothing of his report, since his wife works there she may have sent or recommened him".

I'll bet it was that simple, the motive of "revenge" seems rather silly, since how does committing an felony to 6 reporters constitute revenge?

You should see if C-span has that British committee tape for sale. It is very interesting. Which is why our media showed none of it.
Just too many darn facts.