Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So what? On the big questions, Wilson was right: The Iraqis were not trying to buy uranium from Niger, and indeed had no nuclear program. Bush was doing whatever he could to scare people about non-existent Iraqi WMD. Wilson was one of the first with inside knowledge to blow the whistle. So what if his face is red? He's not the story.
|
This whole thread/mess dealt with dishonorable attempts to smear without factual backing. Wilson was one such smearer - the actual things he discovered on his trip added almost nothing to the controversy in reality, and in fact even left the commission in the position of saying that his data and official reports ended up slightly supporting the yellowcake claim - but certainly not refuting it. But his public article turned out to be composed of mostly lies - lies that were central to his case. It was said earlier that the attacks on his report were diversionary - but in fact, they went to the central supports of his public proclamation (which, incidentally and again, were pretty wholely debunked by his commission testimony.) Similarly, it was said here that the attacks on the NYT for publishing this new stolen weapons report without research were only diversionary. People here aren't so naive as to not understand the concept of the news cycle, and the value of even a later-discredited story maligning someone. That was my whole point.
