Mr. Wilson did not tell any lies in his July 6, 2003 essay that asked whether the Bush administration had purposefully overlooked the intelligence acquired by his trip to Niger. Yet a week later Mr. Novak wrote about his wife. Obviously, certain white house officials were concerned enough about the contents of Mr. Wilson's essay to spend some time looking into his background. It begs the question as to why they would be concerned by what is really an innocuous episode that most government officals were willing to admit pointed to an error in their justification for the case to invade Iraq. Yet, as we know now, at least a couple of white house figures were interested enough in Mr. Wilson to discover the identity of his wife and chat about him with reporters. They seemed to be concerned about something, and describing Mrs. Wilson as "fair game", as attributed to Karl Rove by Chris Matthews seems quite extraordinary. Why would anyone be game? Was this just business as usual with this bunch? That anyone that contradicted or opposed the administration's policies was to be trashed?
The outing of Valarie Plame, I believe, may have just been an incidental and nonintentional consequence of some kind of overzealous concern or possible damage control on the part of the politicos in the white house. But it does raise the question about what they may have been so concerned about, and now, if the indictment of Mr. Libby has any basis in truth, begs the question: what was he covering up that he needed to lie about it?
All this other stuff about possible inconsistencies in later publications of Mr. Wilson are really collateral issues and have nothing to do with the events that occurred in early July of 2003. It doesn't serve conservatives well to focus on the man and build an army of strawmen when the issue is really simple and straightforward.
My wife sometimes comes to see what I am doing. She was quite amused by your chucklehead quip.
St. Chuck said..."All this other stuff about possible inconsistencies in later publications of Mr. Wilson are really collateral issues and have nothing to do with the events that occurred in early July of 2003. It doesn't serve conservatives well to focus on the man and build an army of strawmen when the issue is really simple and straightforward."
So, St. Chucklehead, you basically are sugarcoating all the lies of Joe Wilson as "collateral issues". These are not strawmen arguments. On the contrary, they directly undermine the credibility of this witness, Joe Wilson. Unfortunately, this includes his conclusion, that the Bush administration manipulated WMD information, in the July article published in the NYT.
It's not just me and thousands of other blogger types who are questioning Joe Wilson's credibility. The list includes journalists such as Bob Woodward, who has pointed out many of the inconsistencies (i.e. lies) in the Wilson narrative. For the most recent exposure, please read the Op-Ed from Max Boot that appeared yesterday in the LA Times. He slams your boy big time for his consistent pattern of lies and wonders if Wilson lying to the media is a crime!
Libby may very well have lied about his conversations with reporters. But, he has not been indicted for outing the so-called "covert" CIA agent, Valerie Plame. And, despite the Lib mantra, he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
The problem with you and the Libs is that you all seem to be operating in another realm of reality. Facts really don't matter. The only thing that matters is regaining political power, truth and decency be damned. The continual barrage of anti-Bush garbage from the Dim party and its legions are quickly making the Dims even more inconsequential.
Sleep well!