I again read the Wilson article in the New York times dated 7/6/03. I do not think Wilson should have written the article. I think (speculation) Plame was aware of her husband's mission, findings, and later his plans to write the article - I further believe the intent of the article was to discredit the case for war.
Wilson conducted his investigation but by his own words did not have access to all of the information, but based on his investigation he made his conclusion about the yellow cake and he was proved correct. However, I think it is reasonable to consider that others who investigated the issue could come to a different conclusion. If presented with conflicting reports it is also reasonable for the "decider" to act on one or the other based on a judgement call.
In the article Wislson uses terms like "highly doubtful", and "probably forged". Further, he was not aware of any written report of his findings nor did he have firsthand knowledge of if and how the information was communicated to the Office of the Vice President or the Office of the President. Yet, he broadly concludes the following:
Quote:
|
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
|
He says "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program...", rather than being specific in relationship to the information he gathered. How does he make that conclusion? I think that is a conclusion he could only make with the assistance of his spouse, a CIA employee or with some other CIA insider.
So in my view we have a covert CIA agent engaged in pillow talk or some other form of talk, expressing her opinion on intelligence matters, and then being involved in publishing information in a major newpaper to discredit the case for war.
I think what happened shows disloyalty, lack of discretion and poor judgement.
I do understand how others see it differently. Unless, there is a change in how, I or you guys who disagree with me, address the question of loyalty in this issue, we will never see this the same way.
{added}
Just for the record, concerning "lies", here is something I came across - I think saying Bush lied is wrong.
Quote:
Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.
But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.
|
I would suggest going to the link and reading the whole thing.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html