I guess I'm naive, but it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to get to the bottom of the Wilson issue.
marron's 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?
NotQuiteCricket's questions:
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?
Are questions raised on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/992471/posts Like you say, it is the government - and they probably have 4 shipping containers full of paper to sift through, but I thought they knew how to file? Aren't computers involved? Let me get at the database, and I'll get it figured out in a week.
We still don't know (well, we do, but nobody will admit it in public) who hired Craig Livingstone. No doubt it was the same shadowy person who hired Joe Wilson.
I agree 100%. I'm still curious if Wilson got any kind of kickback during his visit. I think eventually we will hear some criticisms about the visit directly from Africa...
Someone on the NRO "Corner" recently asked the very sensible question re: Wilson's wife: Even if she were a CIA operative, she still had a "Cover." THAT'S WHY ALL SUCH AGENTS UNDER COVER--so that, if an accusation is leveled that the person is a CIA agent, the person can point to a legitimate employer etc. So the question is: why didn't the CIA use the Cover???