Replies

The "Motive" section of the article is summarized in this paragraph:

In summary, Wilson’s words, actions, and associations suggest three distinct but related motives for his behavior:

1) A business motive for his two trips to Niger.

2) A foreign policy motive, shared by his business associates, for opposing the War on Iraq.

3) A partisan political motive, shared by foreign opponents of the war and elements of the Democratic Party, for trying to unseat Bush and Blair.

The "Means" section is summarized in its opening paragraph:

If Wilson’s motive was to help the perpetrators of Operation Nigergate and the Rockefeller Plan unseat Bush and his allies, the next question to be tackled is, by what means did Wilson and his accomplices attempt to carry out their coup? In the realm of public relations at least the assassination weapon of choice is the poison pen, which is mightier than the sword, so the selected means of attack was a propaganda campaign against Bush, targeting his case for war. For purposes of analysis and discussion, this propaganda campaign can be broken down into four phases:

1. Developing antiwar talking points.

2. Planting the forgery.

3. Publicizing the forgery.

4. Mop-up: Publicizing the alibi.

The first two phases began prior to Wilson’s activation in Phase 3, where he came to center stage.

This is the gist of the "Opportunity" section:

The evidence considered so far verifies that: 1) With respect to motive, Wilson explicitly expressed an intent, motivated by disagreement over Middle Eastern and Iraq policy, to use the Niger forgery controversy to bring about Bush’s impeachment as well as Tony Blair’s downfall; and

2) With respect to means, Wilson had potential access to information from inside sources about the Niger forgeries, as well as actual access to media outlets to publicize this information.

Did Wilson also have actual opportunity to channel inside information? Data which help answer this question has already been assembled in the course of prior discussion, but it remains to address the question directly, and to address Wilson’s alibi.

SNIP

A review of Wilson’s statements prior to his July 6, 2003 New York Times article reveals no less than six occasions where Wilson or someone quoting him stated or implied he had inside knowledge of the Niger forgeries. . .

SNIP

According to Cannistraro’s account, he had to call a contact at CIA headquarters to get information about the forgeries. So how was it that a day after ElBaradei went public, in response to an inquiry about a Washington Post article asked by a CNN reporter who just “happened by” and just happened to be doing an investigation of the forgeries, Joseph Wilson just happened to be there at the scene suggesting, as he characterized his comments in his book, “that if the U.S. government checked its files, it would, I believed, discover that it knew more about the case than the spokesman was letting on”?

I hope that helps!