Replies

Wolfstar, this is an invaluable piece of research and writing. Thank you so much!

Now, drawing on the comment made by Ann Archy, the question remains as to why the lower-level people in the WMD group (apparently without the knowledge of Tenet or anyone else in senior authority at the CIA) send a known Clinton partisan to Niger on this mission? Surely they knew who he was, so why send him?

We are handicapped by not knowing who the other members are of Valerie Plame's group, but I think it not unreasonable to conclude that they either had no idea of Wilson's background (pretty bad for an intelligence agency) OR they knew it and thought it was immaterial, or perhaps (and this is what worries me) PREFERABLE.

What if that whole WMD group has been filled with people who are like Wilson and his wife? What if they are more interested in advancing their agenda than finding WMD? And what if they are looking the other way for a price?

What if Wilson wasn't in Niger to investigate, but rather to carry a message and/or warn someone?

The latter part of this is speculation, of course, but Novak did ask the correct question: How and why was Wilson sent to Niger?

What if Wilson wasn't in Niger to investigate, but rather to carry a message and/or warn someone?

My husband and I were puzzling this out tonight and came up with questions exactly as you put it. I've said before, I question the loyalty of a CIA agent whose spouse carries on as Wilson does. And tonight we talked about why on earth WAS he sent? And I suggested to my husband what you say--that maybe it was to meet someone, etc.

I would just add to your comments that there is evidence that someone in the CIA was interested in promoting Joe Wilson's embellished and burnished version of his trip. See the BBC story of July 9---after Wilson wrote his July 6 op-ed but before Novak's July 14 Plame citation. The BBC quotes an anonymous "CIA official" who totally promotes Wilson's story and says the WH was briefed on his Niger visit. This turned out to be false. George Tenet specifically said in his statement that the WH, VP and senior WH administration officials were not briefed about Wilson or his trip. It is not clear to me when Tenet learned of it.

So the question is, which purported "CIA official" had an interest in pushing this angle----an angle that was not based on fact?

Although I didn't focus on that angle, you are right in that there is at least one (if not several) shadowy CIA offical who anonymously pops up in many of the articles about the Iraq-Niger connection and Wilson. In my opinion, the President and the nation have not been well-served by the CIA under Tenet. I mean look at the glaring CIA failures:

It was and remains their responsibility to get Osama bin Laden. It was Tenet who caused the President to pull the trigger on the Iraq invasion early, because Tenet claimed he knew exactly where Saddam Hussein was. That proved wrong. He did it again a couple of weeks into the war, and again was wrong. CIA still doesn't know where Hussein is. Then there's the whole WMD question. None have been found. Why? Were we being suckered all these years? If so, by whom? Supposedly, CIA has been monitoring Iraq's WMD program for years, so why didn't they have a far better handle on the matter before we went in? Frankly, while I think President Bush's famously deep loyalty is admirable, I think it's misplaced in Tenet's case. He should have been fired long ago.

So many questions. So few answers. To me, if it weren't for the Dems screaming for a special counsel, the Wilson matter would be a sideshow. I think something is deeply rotten at CIA and I wish I had the time and resources to look into the matter in depth.