I'm not sure I understand their point. Joe Wilson said the Niger documents were forgeries. The CIA according to all reports said they were uncomfortable with them. How does the senate report prove Joe Wilson to be a partisan fraud?
"The Committee likewise found no evidence of pressure to link Iraq to al Qaeda." But they also found no evidence from the CIA that they were "Allies" or had any strong connection, something the administration has claimed repeatedly and still has to put up or shut up about.
If we want to accuse the liberals of faulty logic, we can't use it ourselves. The article simply makes no sense, despite saying things we might want to hear.
1. Joe Wilson may have "said" the "Niger documents" were forgeries, but he never actually saw them (until later perhaps), so he had no standing to do so.
2. Wilson was not sent to Niger to investigate whether the "Niger documents" were forgeries (again, he hadn't seen them at that point) but rather the general question of Saddam-Niger uranium attempts.
3. Nothing he did in Niger proved the "Niger documents" were forgeries (to the extent that we know that, we know it from other sources). Didn't stop him from going around talking as if he was a big expert on them, their missing signatures, etc.
4. On the other hand, what he did in Niger DID prove Bush's 16 words correct. One of Wilson's sources stated that an Iraqi (Baghdad Bob, turns out) made what he perceved as a uranium overture. This proves Bush's 16 words correct. This is (I believe) in the Senate report and is Exhibit A of Wilson's partisan fraudulence. (And the "Niger documents" being frauds has no bearing on this issue - one of the most irritating ways in which the Joe Wilsons of the world have misled the rest of us. The fact that someone somewhere forged a document does not prove that Saddam didn't seek uranium from Africa - if it did, then I could convert you into a high school dropout by writing up a forged high school diploma with your name on it.)
5. Although his actual investigation proved the opposite, Wilson came back from Niger, wrote an NYT article "What I didn't find in Africa", and generally spent the next year talking as if he'd DISPROVED Bush's 16 words. The "Baghdad Bob" story didn't come out till his book.
6. He actually lied publicly about his wife recommending him for the job; this is Exhibit B in the Senate report which helps prove him a partisan fraud. (It's also Exhibit A in proving his little "investigation" a fraud to being with. This whole damn thing never should have been an issue.)
7. Incidentally the administration has NOT "claimed repeatedly" that Iraq and al Qaeda were "Allies" (why do you put that in quotes?), that is a lie invented and promulgated by yourself for reasons known only to yourself. They have claimed there were connections, which is absolutely true. If you want to get into silly puerile parsings about what "kind" of connections, be my guest, but I really don't see the point.
A sovereign state making an open declaration of ties with Al Qaeda is an invitation for trouble. Because we haven't obtained irrefutable evidence or testimony of operational ties doesn't mean they didn't exist. The number of contacts between them is quite impressive. Check these threads:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1145700/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022083/posts
Plame's Input is Cited on Niger Mission [Joe Wilson lied about everything]