Wilson is twisting and dodging. But he is twisting in the
wind. He said over and over that Cheney had been briefed.
And called him names because of it. - From: LindyBill
<font size=4>Wolf Blitzer asks whether there is anything he would like to take back; Wilson admits that, although it is a surprise to him, he has to admit that apparently Cheney was not briefed on his report.<font size=3>
A Joe Wilson On CNN Wants A Piece of Pincus
Just One Minute blog
Joe Wilson appeared on CNN late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. Pending a transcript, it sounded like Joe Wilson called out Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, claiming that Mr. Pincus "misattributed" quotes to Joe Wilson in the Washington Post story cited in the Senate investigation into intelligence failures.
Wilson essentially recycled the defense presented in the Washington Post and Salon. However, <font size=4>new ground was broken when Wolf Blitzer asked him about the misleading information given by Wilson to the Washington Post. Wilson's explanation to the Senate staff was that he <font color=blue>"mis-spoke"<font color=black>. His new explanation to Wolf Blitzer is that he had not read the stories the staffers were asking about; he sees now that they have several sources, so he actually mis-spoke to the Senate staff - he should have said that he was <font color=blue>"misattributed"<font color=black>.
Our thought - oh, please. The Senate staff had (we imagine) supporting evidence, and possibly statements from the reporters themselves (Wilson's role in this had already been reported by the WaPo). For Wilson to change his story now, when we the people can't see all the evidence, is a bit slim.
Here is the Post story in which the misleading information appeared; here is the current WaPo reporting.
Is it unreasonable to think that (a) Susan Schmidt checked with the other WaPo reporters before printing this charge? If the Senate report is wrong, that is news - why is the Post keeping it quiet?
And is it unreasonable to think that (b) Walter Pincus, who printed the story describing what Wilson reported, and relied on Wilson as a source, checked with Wilson before describing the nature of Wilson's report back in June of 2003? We wonder whether Mr. Pincus appreciates having his journalistic skills challenged on national television.
As a bit of an aside, in the course of a wide-ranging interview, Acting CIA Director McGlaughlin was asked whether Ms. Plame had recommended Mr. Wilson fo rethe trip to Niger. He declined to answer, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.
That is a stock excuse, of course, but it does not jibe with the Josh Marshall argument that her involvement is legally irrelevant.
More interview notes below:
UPDATE: The stalwart Roger Simon has thoughts on this, and provides a link to the reply of the WaPo ombudsman to Wilson's letter.
Wolf Blitzer hit on several points. He displayed and read the excerpt from the Senate report describing Ms. Plame's involvement. Joe Wilson's explanation - his wife was a conduit only, the CIA had his name from a 1999 trip, and the memo prepared by his wife which cited his qualifications was simply in response to a request for something like a resume.
[One wonders why his resume was not on file, since, as the Senate report makes clear, they did have his name from the 1999 trip. There is also a suggestion that his wife suggested him for thattrip, IIRC]
Asked about the section of the Senate report where a CIA officers is quoted as saying that Ms. Plame <font color=blue>"offered up"<font color=black> his name. Wilson argues that the quote is out of context, although he admitted to having no idea what the full context had been.
He also repeats his <font color=blue>"believe the anonymous leaks"<font color=black> defense.
Wold asks about the leaks of <font color=blue>"misleading information"<font color=black> to the Washington Post, pointing out that Wilson's explanation to the senate staff was <font color=blue>"I mis-spoke."<font color=black>
Wilson gives more detail here - when the Senate asked him about those stories, he did not re-read them. He has since learned that the stories had several sources, so when he <font color=blue>"mis-spoke"<font color=black> it was to the Senate staff - he should have said that he was <font color=blue>"misattributed"<font color=black>.
And what about the trade mission, Wolf Blitzer wonders - how did that get left out of your early accounts?
Wilson explains that there were several unimportant Iraqi-Niger contacts, and that eventually the CIA gave up on the story. Therfore, we are left to conclude, what he said was essentially accurate.
Wolf Blitzer asks whether there is anything he would like to take back; Wilson admits that, although it is a surprise to him, he has to admit that apparently Cheney was not briefed on his report.<font size=3>
justoneminute.typepad.com |
