Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Wilson's report:- The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place
The CIA dismissed his tea conversations out of hand. And that was the end of it. Until the entire 16 word issue surfaced once the docs - that Wilson never saw - were claimed to be forgeries (still disputed by the Brits) and Wilson mugged for the cameras at every opportunity to decry Bush and state that he knew this all along.
According the FT, the Niger claims are looking pretty accurate.
"Debunked" was the word he used repeatedly for the Niger claims. That he debunked the claims and that Bush knowingly lied in the SOTU. This led to questions as to his motives and why he was sent overseas in the first place. And thus his wife's name was reported.
I don't ignore it at all. Someone should just step forward at this point.
Um, he repeatedly denied it after the fact.
- For those who would assert that somehow she was involved in this, it just defies logic. At the time, she was the mother of two-year-old twins. Therefore, sort of sending her husband off on an eight-day trip leaves her with full responsbility for taking care of two screaming two-year-olds without help, and anybody who is parent would understand what that means. Anybody who is a mother would understand it even far better. Secondly, I mean, the notion somehow that this was some nepotism, that I was being sent on an eight-day, all-expense-paid--no salary, mind you--trip to the Sahara desert. This is not Nassau we were talking about. This is not the Bahamas. It wasn't Maui. This was the Sahara desert. And then, the only other thing I can think of is the assertion that she wanted me out of the way for eight days because she, you know, had a lover or something, which is, you don't take lovers when you have two year old kids at home. So there's no logic in it.
Legal has yet to be determined. As for decent, moral or ethical - as if you or me would recognize that if we saw it.
|
You're embarrassing yourself with your use of selective quotations from Wilson's book. You should either read his book or find a better blog source. I have the book, but I loaned it to a neighbor and, even if I did have it here, I'd rather not type out passages debunking your debunking of Wilson's debunking.
And his wife's name wasn't "reported," it was illegally leaked by criminals in the White House. And I don't know what a "very weak request" by the CIA means, other than perhaps they felt intimidated by the White House. Or perhaps it is a lame-ass post hoc rationalization. And even if the request was weak, was it not still a request? Or does the adminstration, like others I can name, not know how to take "no" for an answer?
