BTW, if I understand the text here, Joe Wilson claimed that the forged Niger documents were forged WITHOUT EVER SEEING THEM.
So this leaves us with three possibilities...
1) He guessed - this is beyond believability.
2) His wife saw them and told him - isn't leaking classified documentation grounds for dismissal and charges?
3) He had ties to the forger - certainly this would be high treason.
Re your #164, outstanding reasoning! Only one other possibility exists: that he began claiming they were forged only after that information became public. I wonder when he first made this assertion, and how it compares with the earliest public report of the forged documents.
Or he was playing a stall, obstruction play. One play in a whole game of plays. Who's the coach?
Congressman Peter King suggest last year to prosecute Wilson for what you pointed out.
Below is the thread and link where Pete King says prosecute Wilson.
Prosecute Wilson? (Uhhh...YES!)
The Washington Times ^ | 7 Oct 03 | Greg Pierce
Posted on 10/07/2003 8:43:22 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
A leading New York congressman is calling for an investigation into whether former U.S. diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV violated CIA secrecy when he blew the lid off his role in a February 2002 mission to determine whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.
For the last week, Mr. Wilson has been demanding a probe of the Bush administration's role in revealing his wife's job at the CIA, a move that he contends was an act of retaliation for his decision to go public about the Niger mission in a July op-ed piece for the New York Times.
But Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, said Sunday that it's Mr. Wilson who needs to be investigated — and even prosecuted if he violated CIA secrecy.
"I assume that if he went into this job for the CIA, he had to sign an oath of secrecy — a confidentiality" agreement, Mr. King told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg. "And if he did, then he violated it and he should be prosecuted."
Mr. King added: "He conducted a so-called 'secret' mission for the CIA. [However] he's talking about it all over national and international television — undermining the president of the United States. ... Why wasn't this guy called in before a grand jury?"
Mr. King said that if the CIA didn't require Mr. Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement, then the agency should explain why not — along with why it picked the talkative Mr. Wilson for the sensitive mission in the first place.
"Why did they pick the guy who was anti-Bush, antiwar with Iraq, to go over and conduct a really [slapdash] investigation of Niger?" the House Homeland Security Committee member told Mr. Malzberg.