[Steve_Seattle]

Agree with Rush!"

I only partly agree. I don't agree that Wilson's trip was a set-up from the start. I think Wilson had business interests in Niger, and Plame suggested him for the trip so the CIA would pick up the tab for Wilson to go to Niger and explore personal business opportunities in addition to his "investigation." The CIA initially just saw this as an opportunity to comply with Cheney's request "on the cheap," so they approved it. So Wilson went to Niger, filed his half-assed report that was so insignificant that it never found its way back to Cheney, and the whole thing might have ended right there.

But a year later, the missing WMD story became a political issue, Wilson joined the Kerry campaign, and his story began to change and be embellished in ways damaging to the Bush administration. Then his wife's name came out, and both Wilson and the CIA went into full CYA mode, and it was it this point that the anti-Bush elements in the CIA began to use the story to undermine Bush and deflect criticism from their own failures.

[cubreporter]

Everything you said is probably true but I still think Rush is right.

[kenavi]

I don't agree that Wilson's trip was a set-up from the start.

The facts back you up on this:

Contrary to what Rush said, President Bush's mention of the "yellowcake", in the State of the Union (Jan. 2003) came AFTER Wilson's trip to Niger, in Feb. 2002.

There was no way in Feb. 2002 that Wilson-Plame could know that the British would come out with a White Paper, in Sept. 2002, alleging the purchase, or that Pres. Bush would cite that report a few months later.

That being said, Plame compromised her cover by bringing in her husband to her CIA business, and then allowing him to go public with it. Thus, there was no crime in "leaking" her name to the press.