[Cerek the Barbaric]

Interesting article, Rokenn. It certainly raises some troubling questions, but it also raised some questions in my mind about the reporter and his mission itself.

I'm certainly no expert on C.I.A. policies nor the intricacies of how they conduct their business, but I found it very odd that Joseph Wilson did not submit a written report of his findings to the Agency for presentation to Dick Cheney. This seem like it would be Standard Operating Procedures to me, especially if the contents of the report could verify (or debunk) the allegations of Iraq attempting to buy uranium. Either way, it just doesn't make sense to me why Mr. Wilson didn't file an official written summary of his findings.

Look at it this way...if Joseph Wilson had submitted a written summary of his findings, then he could state unequivocally that the VP Cheney had written documentation that Iraq had not attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. Instead, he submitted an oral summation which in turn was possibly communicated to VP Cheney orally also. As for any official documentation of his trip, he cannot conclusively state that any exists, although he suggests that at least 4 separated documents should be available to verify his trip to Niger. And if he had submitted a written report, he would then have some very strong ammunition to use against Bush's reasons for going to war, especially if that document had mysteriously disappeared. Instead, he presented an oral summation which was then possibly summarized further in oral communication only to VP Cheney. That just seems like a strange way to treat a report that could justify (or refute) America's reasons for entering a war.

The one line that bothered me the most was at the end, where Mr. Wilson trumpets the slogan of the anti-war crowd that we "need to make sure American soldiers died for the right reason". The right reason??? Excuse me? The "right reason" is because they chose to join the military and to go serve wherever they may be sent, whether they agreed or disagreed with the mission. As for the "real reason" of the war...it was to remove Saddam Hussein...and nothing short of a military invasion was going to accomplish that. Hussein would never have stepped down - and his regime of terror and torture would have continued as long as he was allowed to remain in charge.

I'll agree that this raises some questions that should be investigated further and answered by President Bush. But as far as your comment about "if he lied about this, what else did he lie about?", that applies to every President and their Cabinets, regardless of political affiliation. There is no irrefutable proof (yet ) that President Bush lied, but there is irrefutable proof that his predecessor did. If Clinton lied about Lewinsky (and he finally, reluctantly admitted that he did), then what else did he lie about?

The "Accusation Avenue" runs both ways and neither side is spotless or blameless.