Replies

If you check out George Tenet's testimony in the Senate hearing on this, he says he knew nothing about Wilson's trip to Niger and was not aware of any verbal report of his findings and was not aware that Wilson had ever been asked to go to Niger.

This backs up you and I's suspicion that the real scandal lies in who was behind the decision to send Joe Wilson to Niger to begin with and if his wife's job was so secretive, why would they send a totally unqualified person on a mission concerning something as serious as the proliferation of Nuclear material?

These questions must be asked and considering that Joe Wilson is just looking out for what's best, he should have no problem being placed under oathe and testify on everything he knows? My guess is he will take the 5th if that day ever comes, because when all is said and done we will find out that him and his wife are involved in a political smear campaign that could end up puting a few people in jail

If you really want to scratch your head about this story, Check out what UK's Jack Straw said when asked about their Intel on this matter, Straw admits that they didn't share their Intel with the United States for "Good Reason's, which I explained in closed session"..... Why would the Brits not want to share their intel???? Is it because we knew there was "mole" in the CIA and cut off all intel sharing?..... There wasn't any problem sharing Intel in Operation Enduring Freedom, so why did they decide they couldn't share intel with us on something as simple as Saddam sending a deligation of high level military personel on a trade mission to Niger?????

I'll have to re-read some of the material on Tenet. The story of the Iraqi "businessman" trying to meet with Niger officials somes from Wilson by way of Tenet. It was left out of his op-ed piece. Also left out was the trade mission.

This is what bothers me. The trade mission was not a secret, it was effectively public knowledge. That trade mission seals the deal on Bush's remark that Iraq "sought" uranium. There was no need to reference British intel, or anyone else's intel.

So the reference to the Brit's unwillingness to discuss certain intel issues with us regarding Niger is curious. This may have been a reference to supposed French unwillingness to confirm to the US stuff that they had already confirmed to the Brits, according to some things I have read.

The whole thing smells. To confirm "seeking uranium" doesn't require a trip to Niger, as we said, the trade mission is not a secret. To confirm actual transactions, though, would require a real surveillance, some penetration of mining company staff, the tapping of communications. It would require an actual effort. Wilson's trip was not an investigation, it was tourism. And it was tourism he himself exposed with his op-ed. He probably thought he was outing the president, but he was outing the CIA's nakedness in that part of the world.

This is some weird stuff.

I always get a "through the looking glass" sensation with this kind of thing. What is so obvious to us here gets no attention at all in the press. They have all the dots but studiously refuse to connect any of them. When you yourself have finally connected them yourself, you can see in the way stories are written that they are stepping around truths they do not want to address. If they are stepping around them, they know them. Its maddening.