The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #71458   Message #1227013
Posted By: Nerd
16-Jul-04 - 12:44 PM
Thread Name: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
Subject: RE: BS: Senate Report: Bush misled by CIA/FBI..
Okay, now I've read the whole report concerning Joseph Wilson. It does not say that he was self-serving, or lied, or was in error. It DOES suggest that he shot his mouth off about things he should not have known about. In other words, the committee wanted to know how he knew that the names and dates on the purported sales documents were false when he had not seen the documents. The report does not deny that the names and dates were wrong, it just says the committee asked him how he knew. He then backpedaled, saying he may have "misspoken." However, if you read further, you find that indeed there were "obvious problems" with the documents, and that both the CIA and DIA failed to look at them closely enough to recognize this at first. So how DID Wilson know? The report never finds out.

What this means is that at the time of his brief "15 minutes of fame," Wilson was quite right: it was known by then that the documents were forgeries. He may have been mistaken or even lying about WHEN he found that out, but the report doen not openly allege this.

There is no question from the report that the CIA and DIA both screwed up in not recognizing the obviously forged documents sooner. This is essentially what Wilson alleged, so he was almost entirely right. What he may have been wrong about comes down to "even at the time of my trip I knew this was bullshit." In fact he might not have known it was bullshit until later, but still the CIA should have known it was bullshit before it got in the State of the Union. (see conclusion 19)

It is also quite possible that even at the time of his trip to Niger he DID know. This would mean that one of his contacts had told him, that his contact should not have told him, and that he didn't want his contact to get in trouble. (Quite possibly, the contact was his wife).

It's impossible to tell anything about the evidence the British had because the entire section on the British white paper is blacked out of the public version of the report.   

One thing to keep in mind about this report: it is based on interviews with a bunch of guys who are trying to save their asses. There are definitely times when their conclusions are suspect.