The Other Side of Wilson Issue

Smarmy Joseph Wilson has succeeded in deflecting attention from the real issue of the Niger trip: that it was nothing more than a boondoggle designed to smear the Bush campaign. Joseph Wilson was an interesting choice to send on that mission, almost a curious decision. The only explanation that explains him as a choice is 1) his wife set him up for it and 2) Wilson and Plame were Gore supporters and contributors, and Wilson was an outspoken critic of the war. Why didn't we question why Wilson wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times regarding his trip? Is this standard? Did the taxpayers essentially foot the bill for an anti-Bush boondoggle?

Let's just assume that Wilson's accusations of a conspiracy theory are correct, that the Bush administration sought to discredit him by outing his wife. If Wilson is allowed to make inflammatory accusations against the Bush administration, isn't it relevent that Wilson's wife sent him on a boondoggle? How else was the Bush administration to defend itself? After all, do we really believe that a former ambassador who is hostile to the Bush administration and the war was the best person to send on a "fact finding" trip? And why did Wilson's inflammatory Op-Ed differ from the CIA's beliefs that Wilson's reports actually bolstered the argument that Iraq sought yellow cake?

And for someone who loudly proclaimed his outrage over his wife's outing, he sure didn't think twice about posing for Vanity Fair, having her picture sent out world wide. He sure didn't mind making a big stink over the "outing". If my husband were truly concerned about my welfare adn safety, would I want him expressing his outrage to every news outlet that will listen? Would I want to pose with him for several spreads in Vanity Fair? Wouldn't it make more sense to take care of the problem quietly?

Why are we not focusing on Richard Armitage? All of the media blabber heads are still focusing on Cheney and Rove, but they fail to state how they think Armitage fits into the whole big mess. What made Armitage leak the name? Why did he first leak it? Do the blabber heads think he was in on this "conspiracy"? If not, why not? If so, then why is there no focus on him? Could it really be that there is no grand conspiracy after all, and that Armitage and the others didn't think Plame was covert (which she wasn't) and thought it was a relevent part of the story that Plame suggested her husband for the trip? How can the Bush administration defend itself from a partisan boondoggle if they can't share the most relevent fact?

And finally, is it really a good idea for a CIA operative to suggest her husband for a fact finding trip when he plans to come back and write an inflammatory, partisan Op-Ed?