During their love-in last night on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann asked Joe Wilson the following questions regarding the forged documents that led to his Nigerien vacation (visit link from preceding post):
Do you know from even dating back to your trip to Niger where those documents came from? Was that, could that have been a forgery by somebody in this country, in this government? Was it necessarily international? Do you have any conclusions or theories?"Wilson replied with lawyerly language (emphases mine):
"At the time that I was briefed, before I was asked to take this trip, the documents were not in the hands of the U.S. government to the best of my knowledge. I was briefed that an officer, a U.S. officer, had either seen the documents or had been briefed on their existence. And my briefing was based upon the transcript or his report about the existence of those documents. And that's what precipitated the Vice President's query that the CIA follow up on this that led to my trip, but also led to two other reports being done at roughly the same time -- one by a four-star Marine Corps general for the Defense Department, and a third report being done by our ambassador on the ground in Niger. All three of us concluded that there was nothing to that particular allegation. But as to the providence [sic] of those documents, where they came from, I didn't know until I read about it in various articles by Mr. Hersh and Dana Priest of the Washington Post."What is Wilson talking about? Is he talking about what his wife called "this crazy report" about Iraq talking to Niger about the sale of some yellowcake? I'm not too sure, but let us not forget the following excerpt from the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data: Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June 12, 2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded that the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.This is going to come up again, you know. Wilson can't keep his story straight and tools like Olbermann aren't going to press him too hard to do so, anyway.
I think there's some truth to the notion that the anti-war Left is searching for martyrs. They are doing their damnedest to make Wilson and his wife into victims crushed by the Bu$hitler Imperial War Machine, Inc. ---and it's just stupid. The Wilsons are willing partisans who were angling for this job from the start. They are propagandists who are only in it for the fame and fortune.