Wilson's findings from his 2002 trip to Niger were not really considered supporting evidence for the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. However, when faced with the deep embarrassment of having peddled a fake story, the Bush administration dug up the findings from his trip and falsely portrayed it as if it constituted supporting evidence.She seems to be saying that in early 2003 the CIA dusted off Wilson's trip report--the one they never sent to Cheney--and sent it to the IAEA as supporting evidence of their uranium position. Question--why would the CIA think a report Wilson used to debunk Bush could possibly support their claims? Could it be because it did?
Nuance, I guess. Has anyone adequately explained this?
Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret.Sounds like obstruction to me, but I'm not a lawyer and haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express since I last passed through Pratt, Kansas (it had a nice hot tub).
As to upcoming witnesses, lots of anticipation about Russert's testimony, but surely it couldn't upstage anything Cheney might say, if he's even called (I agree with FDL on this one). The "drama" awaits us.
No comments:
Post a Comment