[mattdono]

That is a very interesting question, indeed. As I understand it, Mr. Wilson made an official report in 2002 about his trip to Niger.

Mr. Wilson says he didn't find anything. However, he did learn about in incident in 1999 where Iraq approached a Nigerian official about a possible purchase of uranium, but dismissed the claim because it wasn't a "significant quantity". Other than that, his lack of evidence might have had something to do with the FACT that he never left the U.S. embassy and sat around drinking tea and talking. He really didn't do any investigating.

His official report was filed in 2002. To him, it was done and over. In 2003, he was struck by the "16 words" regarding uranium. Following up on this with some friends in the State department, he started to conclude that the "16 words" were incorrect.

He then wrote an op-ed in the NY Times called "What I Didn't Find in Africa" where he rencounts his trip to Africa and states that they hadn't found anything at all. He neglects to include the incident that might have made the 16 words possible, if not correct.

As I noted, he did find something. In his 2002 report, he found some (antecdotal) evidence that Iraq had made overtures in 1999 to a Nigerian official about purchasing uranium. But, again, he dismissed the claim because it wasn't a significant quantity.

This whole thing goes back to the 16 words that the President said in SOTU address:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

It just shows how arrogant Mr. Wilson is. He took the 16 words as a rebuke to his report. Where, in fact, the President was citing British intelligence.

Perhaps Mr. Wilson wasn't the only person that might have investigated the possibility of significant amounts of uranium being sought?

Maybe someone did a more thorouh investigation? Perhaps, I don't know, the BRITISH?!

Maybe the British investigation actually included leaving the British embassy?

I mean, even his insulated investigation reveal 1 incident, even though it wasn't a significant amount. Maybe if his investigation actually left the US embassy, maybe he would have found more evidence?

[anglian]

TPM: interview summary of his trip:In some retellings of it, in the way some people describe the trip, you basically went over there and said, "Have you guys been selling Iraq any uranium?" and they said no, and that was good enough for you.

WILSON: There was Ari Fleischer who said, that, well, he went over there and obtained the denials of the government and wouldn't any government deny this? I did not obtain the denials of the government, in fact, as I pointed out after Ari said that. What I did is this, I went over and I looked in some detail at how the uranium business operates. And it was much less a question of obtaining their denials, and much more a question of how would a government make a decision that would generate this report of a memorandum of agreement. (covering the sale of uranium). It would be very difficult for a legitimate transaction undertaken by the government of Niger with the government of Iraq to be secret. Not impossible--and it's sort of worth trying to ask yourself whether or not the president, a coup leader, could do a side deal outside the context of the government, for his own account, or for the military.
At a minimum, it would have involved the managing operating partner, which is the French uranium company.
The French have a--nuclear energy is an important component of the French electrical power grid. They need uranium, they need to have a steady source of supply. They need to make sure that they're irreproachable in that, so they can continue to have a steady supply of uranium without running afoul of the IAEA or other international organizations.