# Why didn't Joe Wilson publish his article sooner? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2005, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650 "2005-10-31T00:45:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/1 "2005-10-31T00:45:16Z")
I want to make sure I understand the chronology of Plame gate right, and then I have a few questions: The way I understand the chronology of Plame gate is this (and correct me if I am wrong): 1. There is suspicion that when the Iraqi ambassador to Italy visited Niger with his large complement of intelligence agents, that his secret agenda was to obtain enriched uranium for a nuclear program that would be advanced once the sanctions withered away (see Kenneth Pollack’s book "The Threatening Storm). 2. British intelligence produced documents, which later turned out to be forgeries, which seemed so to substantiate that claim. 3. Cheney wanted validation of the claim, so he asked the CIA to investigate. 4. Valerie Plame either volunteered or was assigned the job, she decided to send her husband, Joe Wilson, who went to Niger in early 2002. 5. Joe Wilson could find no evidence for the claim, and reported as such. We assume this was reported not only to Cheney, but also to Defense, State, and and to Bush 6. Bush uses the British assessment (which they have never retracted), ignoring, as far as we can tell, Wilson’s report, as part of his rationale for invading Iraq. Wilson hears Bush’s claim in January 2003, but doesn’t not speak up until July 2003. If Wilson knew that Bush was using discredited information, why didn’t he write his NY Times article in February, when it could have been used as part of the argument against the invasion? Here is my question: Why did he wait? I have friends who have met Wilson, and describe him as an honorable patriot, who only wanted to expose the lies. They can’t tell me why he waited until it was too late to use his knowledge to prevent the war. Any theories out there? And Libby’s motivation for outing Plame: what it that the administration felt that Plame took on this mission and sent her husband because they were already against the war? In other words, is Bush via his proxy Cheney/Libby, saying that Wilson/Plame were on a mission to discredit the adminstation, and not really just to gather intelligence? Are they claiming that within the CIA there was a plot to undermine the administration? ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/2 "2005-10-31T00:58:03Z")
> [@Lynwood Slim](#): > > Why did he wait? I have friends who have met Wilson, and describe him as an honorable patriot, who only wanted to expose the lies. They can’t tell me why he waited until it was too late to use his knowledge to prevent the war. Any theories out there? Why didn’t Wilson publish his article sooner? I did a little research… Pg. 313 of his book: after the 16 words in the SOTU, Wilson called a colleague at the State Dept and asked if Bush was referring to Niger - the colleague said perhaps it was a different African country (others have uranium). Wilson didn’t know the speech referred to Niger until later. When Colin Powell gave his infamous UN speech: “It was Powell’s credibility that finally put public opinion over the top” for support for war. Wilson did begin to speak out, in an article in The Nation (in Feb. 03), on NOW with Bill Moyers later in February, on Nightline, and other TV talk shows, etc., etc. The administration continued to lie, deny, cover up. Finally Wilson wrote his infamous NYT article. It is unclear that it would have made a difference had it been written earlier - after all, the other times he spoke out made no difference. Considering that the International Atomic Energy Agency announced on 3/7/03 that the documents the US possessed were forgeries, probably not. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/3 "2005-10-31T01:16:40Z")
[QUOTE=Lynwood Slim] I want to make sure I understand the chronology of Plame gate right, and then I have a few questions: The way I understand the chronology of Plame gate is this (and correct me if I am wrong): > [@](#): > > 1. There is suspicion that when the Iraqi ambassador to Italy visited Niger with his large complement of intelligence agents, that his secret agenda was to obtain enriched uranium for a nuclear program that would be advanced once the sanctions withered away (see Kenneth Pollack’s book "The Threatening Storm). Yes. > [@](#): > > 1. British intelligence produced documents, which later turned out to be forgeries, which seemed so to substantiate that claim. And yet, British intelligence (as described by Tony Blair) still stands behind the claim, in spite of the forged documents. One presumes they have more than the forged documents to support this stance. If they do, they have not revealed it. > [@](#): > > 1. Cheney wanted validation of the claim, so he asked the CIA to investigate. I had not heard this originated with Cheney. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I have not heard. > [@](#): > > 1. Valerie Plame either volunteered or was assigned the job, she decided to send her husband, Joe Wilson, who went to Niger in early 2002. No. She did not have the authority. Apparently she only recommended her husband as well suited for the job. > [@](#): > > 1. Joe Wilson could find no evidence for the claim, and reported as such. We assume this was reported not only to Cheney, but also to Defense, State, and and to Bush What do you base that assumption on? Cheney claims not to have seen such a report. We don’t know who it reached. My assumption would be that since it did not support the stance the administration wanted it to support, that they never even got it. I recall (no cite) from an earlier discussion that they were not open to analyzing intelligence views that did not support the Saddam-had-WMD thesis. > [@](#): > > 1. Bush uses the British assessment (which they have never retracted), ignoring, as far as we can tell, Wilson’s report, as part of his rationale for invading Iraq. Bush’s rationale for invading Iraq was never simply Nigerian Uranium. That was but one bullet point supporting the WMD argument, and there were several other bullet points as well, most notably described in Colin Powell’s infamous testimony. WMDs themself were but one (albeit major) talking point in Bush’s rationale for invasion. When he gave a speech he usually mentioned: 1. WMDs 2. Genocide 3. Torture 4. Failure to comply with various UN resolutions 5. Non-compliance with UN inspections 6. Terrorism 7. Stability of the Mideast 8. “One of the worst Dictators.” That is a more accurate summation of Bush’s rationale. > [@](#): > > Wilson hears Bush’s claim in January 2003, but doesn’t not speak up until July 2003. If Wilson knew that Bush was using discredited information, why didn’t he write his NY Times article in February, when it could have been used as part of the argument against the invasion? Here is my question: > > Why did he wait? I have friends who have met Wilson, and describe him as an honorable patriot, who only wanted to expose the lies. They can’t tell me why he waited until it was too late to use his knowledge to prevent the war. Any theories out there? Well, the most common theory from the right is that it was a set up. According to this scenario Plame gets Wilson sent. Wilson’s report basically says he didn’t find anything (we don’t actually see the actual report.) Since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and since it doesn’t say anything the Bush administration wants to hear, it is not considered. This pisses Wilson off and/or it is suggested that he and his wife are liberal, anti-war/anti-bush. Wilson therefore rights his piece timed for maximum damage against the Bush adminstration rather than to do any good. In some instances this scenario is taken a step further and it suggested that Plame/Wilson planned this thing the whole way through. > [@](#): > > And Libby’s motivation for outing Plame: We don’t know. There are a couple of different possibilites. Take your pick: 1. Libby outs Plame to discredit Wilson but does so through reporters so that it does not appear that it is an act of vengeance. It looks better if it something “figured out” by reporters. 2. Libby did it accidently. 3. Libby didn’t do it. While it seems **extremely** likely that Libby is the original source, and I myself think we was, it is not ironclad that he was. > [@](#): > > what it that the administration felt that Plame took on this mission and sent her husband because they were already against the war? In other words, is Bush via his proxy Cheney/Libby, saying that Wilson/Plame were on a mission to discredit the adminstation, and not really just to gather intelligence? The adminstration has not made any such claim that I am aware of. Many on the right have though, others strongly imply it. > [@](#): > > Are they claiming that within the CIA there was a plot to undermine the administration? I have not hear anybody claim that. What I have heard argued is that Plame was abusing her CIA status to further a personal political agenda. Personally, I would like to see the actual text of Joe Wilson’s report. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/4 "2005-10-31T01:24:24Z")
> [@](#): > > After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was “highly unlikely,” though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson’s intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson’s briefing remains classified. From the Novak piece that started it all: > **[Robert Novak: Biography and Latest Articles - Robert Novak](https://townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/)** > > Robert D. Novak (1931-2009) was born Feb. If one is to examine Joe Wilson’s motivations one needs to hear what his report actually contained before we can do anything but speculate. ---
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/5 "2005-10-31T01:38:38Z")
Thank you very much for your thorough and attentive reply to my post and questions. You’ve really helped me understand things better. I will do some more research and cogitating based on your responses, and come back with better questions. From your information, did Wilson uncover any evidence, aside from the forged documents, that the Iraqis were or weren’t interested in uranium purchase from Niger? Your note about arguing from absence is well put. I hope this does not sound off, but do you have a political blog? You write without the tendentious turgidity of the screeds I often encounter here when political questions are raised. It would be well if political questions could be asked without the debate being interrupted with the usual rants. best, L.S. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/6 "2005-10-31T01:42:14Z")
Such analyses make Wilson the central figure which is exactly what the administration wanted to do in the first place. The central features should be that Wilson’s report was that there was that the story of an attempt by Iraq to obtain fissionables from Niger was questionable at least and that the administration set out to discredit the messenger instead of refuting the message. And they are still at it. Every time the subject arises, Wilson is attacked. Wilson could be the sleaziest skunk imagineable but that wouldn’t change things. Nor would it change the substance of his report if his trip had been a boondoggle arranged by his wife. In the face of CIA warnings about the unreliability of the information GW went ahead with this questionable material in his State of The Union speech seemingly in order to bolster his case for war. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/7 "2005-10-31T01:49:17Z")
> [@Lynwood Slim](#): > > Thank you very much for your thorough and attentive reply to my post and questions. You’ve really helped me understand things better. I will do some more research and cogitating based on your responses, and come back with better questions. That’s very kind of you. > [@](#): > > From your information, did Wilson uncover any evidence, aside from the forged documents, that the Iraqis were or weren’t interested in uranium purchase from Niger? Your note about arguing from absence is well put. I have no idea what the substance of Wilson’s report was. It would be nice if we could see it. > [@](#): > > I hope this does not sound off, but do you have a political blog? You write without the tendentious turgidity of the screeds I often encounter here when political questions are raised. It would be well if political questions could be asked without the debate being interrupted with the usual rants. > > best, L.S. Thank you again. I’m still trying to figure this out. Once I do, doubtless I will have a turgid screed of my own. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/8 "2005-10-31T02:01:42Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Such analyses make Wilson the central figure which is exactly what the administration wanted to do in the first place. You don’t know what the adminsitration wants to do, though you’re free to guess. > [@](#): > > The central features should be that Wilson’s report was that there was that the story of an attempt by Iraq to obtain fissionables from Niger was questionable at least and that the administration set out to discredit the messenger instead of refuting the message. I feel that Wilson should and **must** be the focus. We cannot read his actual report. We would not know about it if Wilson had not gone public. Wilson I think is a legitimate focus. It seems to me unusual that he would choose to go public and attack the administration based upon a classified report he made at the behest of the government. Personally, I think it is somewhat improper. Your wife, a CIA operative, sends you on a mission to gather information and make a report. You do. At a later time you write about the report to discredit the administration at a damaging time on the OP-Ed page of the NYT. Wilson may in fact be what he claims, a patriot revealing the truth to the American public. He may also be pursuing a political agenda. I don’t know. But, I think it’s reasonable to consider both possibilities, and I think that because Wilson inserted himself into this issue his motivations are a legitimate focus. > [@](#): > > And they are still at it. Every time the subject arises, Wilson is attacked. Wilson could be the sleaziest skunk imagineable but that wouldn’t change things. Nor would it change the substance of his report if his trip had been a boondoggle arranged by his wife. In the face of CIA warnings about the unreliability of the information GW went ahead with this questionable material in his State of The Union speech seemingly in order to bolster his case for war. No “seemingly” about it. It was clearly to bolster his case. Personally, I think that it would have been fair for him to use it, had he qualified it properly. He stated it as fact, when in actuality it was very disputable. If he had said Saddam Hussein “may” have attempted to purchase uranium, it wouldn’t be an issue. That was an important ommision. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/9 "2005-10-31T02:09:55Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I feel that Wilson should and **must** be the focus. We cannot read his actual report. We would not know about it if Wilson had not gone public. Wilson I think is a legitimate focus. It seems to me unusual that he would choose to go public and attack the administration based upon a classified report he made at the behest of the government. If you were in his situation you would not blow the whistle? > [@Scylla](#): > > Personally, I think it is somewhat improper. Your wife, a CIA operative, sends you on a mission to gather information and make a report. You do. At a later time you write about the report to discredit the administration at a damaging time on the OP-Ed page of the NYT. I am of the understanding that she did not _send_ him. That wasn’t her prerogative. However, working in the WMD office, she piped up: “Nigeria? My husband used to work there. He’d be great for that gig!” and the CIA decided he was. I don’t know much about the candor of his relationship with the CIA but I am certain they had a political motive in wanting to blow that one open. Their beloved boss had to fall on his sword while the administration blamed them for the innacuracy even though they’d been trying to communicate the fallacy of the Nigeria claim for some time. > [@Scylla](#): > > Wilson may in fact be what he claims, a patriot revealing the truth to the American public. He may also be pursuing a political agenda. I don’t know. But, I think it’s reasonable to consider both possibilities, and I think that because Wilson inserted himself into this issue his motivations are a legitimate focus. I believe he is pursuing a political agenda. The CIA requires vindication. The American public deserves to know how and why intelligence gathering was bungled. I happen to agree that he’s a legitimate focus but finding that he, like everyone else, has a political motive shouldn’t come as a surprise. And his findings regarding Nigeria seem to bear out anyway. It confuses me that the British government sticks to its findings, but at the same time, it strikes me as a fairly costless way of helping Bush &co minimize the damage. All Bush needed to say was “Joe Wilson’s week in Nigeria or the British government’s ongoing intelligence operations?” and Wilson could have been beaten aside. > [@Scylla](#): > > No “seemingly” about it. It was clearly to bolster his case. Personally, I think that it would have been fair for him to use it, had he qualified it properly. He stated it as fact, when in actuality it was very disputable. If he had said Saddam Hussein “may” have attempted to purchase uranium, it wouldn’t be an issue. > > That was an important ommision. Word. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/10 "2005-10-31T02:22:48Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > You don’t know what the adminsitration wants to do, though you’re free to guess. > > I feel that Wilson should and **must** be the focus. We cannot read his actual report. We would not know about it if Wilson had not gone public. Wilson I think is a legitimate focus. It seems to me unusual that he would choose to go public and attack the administration based upon a classified report he made at the behest of the government. > > Personally, I think it is somewhat improper. Your wife, a CIA operative, sends you on a mission to gather information and make a report. You do. At a later time you write about the report to discredit the administration at a damaging time on the OP-Ed page of the NYT. > > Wilson may in fact be what he claims, a patriot revealing the truth to the American public. He may also be pursuing a political agenda. I don’t know. But, I think it’s reasonable to consider both possibilities, and I think that because Wilson inserted himself into this issue his motivations are a legitimate focus. > > No “seemingly” about it. It was clearly to bolster his case. Personally, I think that it would have been fair for him to use it, had he qualified it properly. He stated it as fact, when in actuality it was very disputable. If he had said Saddam Hussein “may” have attempted to purchase uranium, it wouldn’t be an issue. > > That was an important ommision. I think the one overwhelming and overriding fact is that the US attacked another country based on shaky data that was magnified by someone using half-truths (or less). Wilson did not send us into something that has seriously damaged the US internationally. Nor did Wilson send us into an engagement that has seriously strained our military by overextending the National Guards and knocked recruitment into a cocked hat. Nor will Wilson’s actions threaten serious international consequences because of that military overextension. Why should he be the focus of the public’s attention? I can see why those with something to hide would like to _make_ him the focus. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/11 "2005-10-31T02:32:17Z")
If anyone is interested, here is [factchecks](http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html) chronology for the whole Plame thing: > [@](#): > > Analysis > > 1988-1991 – Joseph Wilson serves as Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad , Iraq. In July 1990, he takes over as acting ambassador to Iraq . (Joseph Wilson, The Politics of Truth 451, 2004). > > 1992-1995 – Nominated by President George H.W. Bush, Wilson serves as Ambassador to the African nations of Gabon , as well as the smaller island country of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. (Wilson, Politics 451). > > 1995-1997 – Joseph Wilson serves as political adviser to the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in Europe, stationed in Germany . On a trip to Washington DC, Wilson meets Valerie Plame who at the time says she is an “energy executive living in Brussels. ” (Wilson, Politics 239-242). > > June 1997 – Joseph Wilson returns to Washington DC as Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. At about the same time, Plame also moves back to the United States (Wilson, Politics 240), in part because the CIA suspects her name was leaked to the Russians in 1994. ( Vanity Fair, Jan. ‘04) . > > April 3, 1998 – Wilson and Plame marry. (Wilson, Politics 276). > > July 1998 – Joseph Wilson leaves government service to open a consulting firm specializing in assisting international investment in Africa. (Wilson, Politics 275). > > 1999 – Joseph Wilson takes a trip to Niger at the behest of the CIA to investigate “uranium-related matters” separate from Iraq . (Wilson, Politics lv-lvi). According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on pre-war intelligence, Wilson “was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.” (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Assessment of Iraq Intelligence, 39, July 2004). > > April 22, 1999 – Valerie Wilson lists “Brewster-Jennings & Assoc.”—later revealed to be a CIA front company—as her employer when making a donation to the Gore campaign. ( Gore FEC filing). > > June 1999 – Niger ’s former prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki meets with an Iraqi delegation wanting to discuss “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki interprets this as an interest in uranium, Niger ’s main export, and later tells Wilson that he did not discuss it because Iraq remained under UN trade sanctions. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July 2004). > > … > > July 6, 2005 – Miller, still refusing to testify before the grand jury, is jailed for contempt of court. (" ’Time’ Reporter to Testify … ” [USAToday.com](http://USAToday.com), July 6, 2005).Cooper says he receives last-minute permission from his confidential source, Karl Rove, to testify. (Matthew Cooper, " What I told the Grand Jury, ” Time, July 2005). > > July 18, 2005 – Bush – easing off earlier White House statements that he would fire anyone who leaked – says “if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” ( Bush Press Conference with Prime Minister of India, July 18, 2005) . His press secretary Scott McClellan declines to say whether a firing would be triggered by an indictment or would require a conviction. ( White House Press Briefing, July 18, 2005 ). -XT ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/12 "2005-10-31T02:48:44Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I think the one overwhelming and overriding fact is that the US attacked another country based on shaky data that was magnified by someone using half-truths (or less). On the subject of the WMDs, and the part of that pertaining to Nigerian Uranium yes. This however, was never the sum total of the rationale for going to war and should not be represented as such. > [@](#): > > Wilson did not send us into something that has seriously damaged the US internationally. Nor did Wilson send us into an engagement that has seriously strained our military by overextending the National Guards and knocked recruitment into a cocked hat. Nor will Wilson’s actions threaten serious international consequences because of that military overextension. Why should he be the focus of the public’s attention? Paris Hilton didn’t do those things either, yet she’s a focus (Yeah, I know, Joe Wilson doesn’t have Paris’s either.) Seriously, these things you mention are not requirements for the public focus. Joe Wilson, his trip, his wife, the outing, and the substance of his report are **necessarily** at the center of the focus of this particular scandal. I honestly don’t understand why you object to this. I would like to know more about these things because if I do that will enable me to have a better handle on the outing scandal. For example, if the substance of Joe Wilson’s oral report was “I took a look around, I had some Sushi and some lunch with some guys but I didn’t find anything one way or the other,” than I would understand the context of Joe Wilson’s editorial and I might conclude that the right might be onto something with their cries of “foul” and “set-up.” I might conclude that Plame/Wilson were abusing their positions to pursue a political agend innapropriately and that therefore she no longer deserved the protections afforded a CIA operative since she and her husband were attempting to make policy (in this case perjury and obstruction are still the same and Libby should rightfully be indicted.) On the other hand, if the report were to show convincing evidence that the Nigerian fiasco was in fact an obvious red herring than I would be more inclined to think that the left is correct and Wilson was behaving as a responsible patriot. This is a frustrating case because the information that really gives context to what has happened and understand it is not available. > [@](#): > > I can see why those with something to hide would like to _make_ him the focus. If you assume Joe Wilson was acting conscientiously, and the adminstation not, then yes. The problem is that the information you need to give weight to that assumption is being withheld, and, for no good reason, I might add. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/13 "2005-10-31T03:29:53Z")
Nitpick: Niger and Nigeria are not the same place, just countries with similar names. Niger is north of Nigeria, and also bordered by Mali, Algeria, Libya, Chad, Cameroon, Benin and Burkina Faso. Also, Wilson was never ambassador to either country. Under George H. W. Bush he served as ambassador to both Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe and he did work for Clinton on African policy for the National Security Council. He sheltered civilians from Saddam in the US Embassy during the build up to the first Gulf War, although it’s not clear to me from cites I can find whether he was ever an ambassador to Iraq or just worked there in his earlier foreign service. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/14 "2005-10-31T03:35:27Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > Nitpick: > > Niger and Nigeria are not the same place, just countries with similar names. Niger is north of Nigeria, and also bordered by Mali, Algeria, Libya, Chad, Cameroon, Benin and Burkina Faso. Niger, Nigeria, Austria, Australia, Guyana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, New Guinea and Papua New Guinea have some esplainin’ to do! ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/15 "2005-10-31T03:51:21Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > Niger, Nigeria, Austria, Australia, Guyana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, New Guinea and Papua New Guinea have some esplainin’ to do! Don’t even get me started on how confusing it is to have the United States of America right next door to the United Mexican States. Also, French Guiana are upset that they didn’t make your list – there are riots in Cayenne even as we speak. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/16 "2005-10-31T04:20:10Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > On the subject of the WMDs, and the part of that pertaining to Nigerian Uranium yes. This however, was never the sum total of the rationale for going to war and should not be represented as such. Do you really want to go into the other “sum total and rationale for going to war?” > [@](#): > > Paris Hilton didn’t do those things either, yet she’s a focus (Yeah, I know, Joe Wilson doesn’t have Paris’s either.) ??? > [@](#): > > Seriously, these things you mention are not requirements for the public focus. Joe Wilson, his trip, his wife, the outing, and the substance of his report are **necessarily** at the center of the focus of this particular scandal. I honestly don’t understand why you object to this. What is the scandal? > [@](#): > > I would like to know more about these things because if I do that will enable me to have a better handle on the outing scandal. Oh, you meant the outing scandal. Shouldn’t the focus be on the “outers” rather than the “outees?” > [@](#): > > If you assume Joe Wilson was acting conscientiously, and the adminstation not, then yes. The problem is that the information you need to give weight to that assumption is being withheld, and, for no good reason, I might add. The report isn’t being withheld by Wilson. If he wasn’t conscientious in the report then releasing it might confirm that. The administration and its apologists continutally go back to Wilson and how the trip was arranged when releasing the report with their analysis would refute Wilson if his conclusion is refutable. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/17 "2005-10-31T04:24:38Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > When Colin Powell gave his infamous UN speech: “It was Powell’s credibility that finally put public opinion over the top” for support for war. Wilson did begin to speak out, in an article in The Nation (in Feb. 03), on NOW with Bill Moyers later in February, on Nightline, and other TV talk shows, etc., etc. The administration continued to lie, deny, cover up. [Here](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/wilson) is presumably the Wilson article in The Nation, posted Feb. 13, 2003. And, [here](http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript209_full.html) is the transcript from the NOW program of Feb 28, 2003. At this point, it seems, he did not directly come public with what he personally knew regarding the purchase of uranium but he did argue against the folly of the war…or at least the rush to war. By the way, [here](http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views03/0706-02.htm) is the op-ed in the July 6, 2003 New York Times…and in it he does explain things, basically along the lines of what **Noctolator** noted from Wilson’s book. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/18 "2005-10-31T05:33:20Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > Nitpick: > > Also, Wilson was never ambassador to either country. Under George H. W. Bush he served as ambassador to both Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe and he did work for Clinton on African policy for the National Security Council. He sheltered civilians from Saddam in the US Embassy during the build up to the first Gulf War, although it’s not clear to me from cites I can find whether he was ever an ambassador to Iraq or just worked there in his earlier foreign service. He was the US _charge’ d’affaires_ in Bagdad before the Gulf War. I don’t think we had an ambassador. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/19 "2005-10-31T06:14:05Z")
I think maybe I see the problem between me and **Scylla**. He is interested in the story behind the outing and I’m concentrating on Wilson’s conclusions as to one of the war’s supposed justifications. The “outing” has been the subject of a just concluded grand jury investigation directed by what those who know, or claim to know, is an able investigating attorney. Wilson was definitely not the focus of that investigation, as he shouldn’t have been. Fitzgerald was unable to reach any definitive results that he was willing to publicize on the outing as far as I can tell. Unless the apparently continuing investigation turns up something new that is, seemingly, that. ---
**Author:** ![Fearless\_Reader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9fc29f/32.png) [@Fearless\_Reader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fearless_Reader)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2005, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-joe-wilson-publish-his-article-sooner/328650/20 "2005-10-31T07:38:29Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > He was the US _charge’ d’affaires_ in Bagdad before the Gulf War. I don’t think we had an ambassador. [April Glaspie](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie) ring a bell? She was in the US when the invasion occured, so Wilson became acting ambassador.