Joseph Wilson’s eroding credibility

I’ve been pretty hard in this space on l’affaire Plame. So it seems only fair to point out that Joseph Wilson’s credibility has taken a serious hit with the release of the Senate intelligence committee report. According to the Washington Post‘s Susan Schmidt:

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly. Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House. Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address…. The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly 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 Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Josh Marshall argues that Schmidt is just parroting Republican staffers — as opposed to Josh, who would never just parrot Democratic staffers. Marshall approvingly links to a Knight-Ridder report by James Kuhnhenn entitled “Ex-ambassador didn’t ‘debunk’ Iraq-Niger deal.” That’s not exactly a friendly headline for Wilson. Kuhnhenn does not go as far as Schmidt in debunking Wilson — but then again, Marshall fails to acknowledge that Wilson apparently lied to the Washington Post last June. Marshall makes a valid point when he says:

There’s no ‘challenging the bona fides of a political opponent’ exception to the law in question. While Plame’s alleged role may have some political traction, it’s legally irrelevant. Government officials are not allowed to disclose the identity of covert intelligence agents, whether they feel like they have a good reason or not.

Nevertheless, there’s a reason this has political traction. The apparent disconnect between what Wilson said in his report versus what he said in June 2003 — combined with Plame’s role in hiring Wilson in the first place, contrary to previous reports — make it appear that both of them were lying in order to try to embrrass the administration. This does not excuse whoever leaked Plame’s identity to Novak. It does, however, provide an more understandable motivation than simple intimidation. UPDATE: Pejman Yousefzadeh has a round-up of links in addition to his own analysis on Wilson. Greg Djerejian and Tom Maguire are also essential reading on this front.