I think the Demos started it by Wilson using the President's statement about Iraq/Saddam trying to purchase yellowcake almost 6 months after he had made it.

He didn't plot to do this, it was merely a target of opportunity to attack the war and the administration only months into the war.

To do so he wrote an article published in the NYT on 7/6/03 in which he claimed to have done something. To have gone to a friend in the DOS the day after Bush's '03 SOTU and claim that Bush was wrong in the SOTU.

Link  NYT editorial

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

Now the problem with this statement is two fold.
First, Bush was speaking of attempt not purchase. If we read his article, Wilson was asked to:

While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.

it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life....In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Note something here. No place does he say that he didn't believe that an attempt to purchase had taken place. All he says is that no sale took place.

I find that strange, because he then says:

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

What was he basing this on? No place in his article do we find him denying the attempt to purchase prior to this point in the article. Why does he write that here? He has offered no proof, just a claim that he told someone in the DOS that Bush was wrong.

He then says:

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses

What answer is he speaking of? For that we need to go to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, and see what the CIA had to say about Wilson's "answer."

Link Senate

(CIA Reports Officer)He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

So we know that as of 3/02 he told the CIA there had been no sales, but there had been an attempt.

Now, what changed his mind between 3/02 and 1/29/03?? We have nothing to show us what he based his claim on.

And having none, the question as to why he made the claim  Bush was wrong on 1/28/03 has to be examined.  Let us return to the Senate's report:

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have 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 former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents

The above was at the end of 2004. Now, let's see what he wrote on 7/6/03:

As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

So what do we have. He makes a claim on 7/6/03 that he had claimed that Bush was wrong about "attempt." Something he claims to have known on 1/29/03, yet has now admitted that he misspoke because he couldn't have seen the report because the IAEA report didn't come out until March 03.

Libby was prosecuted, tried and convicted on things more confusing than that.

So, dear Sailor, I repeat. This was, and is all politics. I truly hope that Wilson is questioned under oath about these points.

So I don't know, nor do I care if Libby lied. As was said about Bill Clinton, any man will lie to protect his marriage. Any man will lie to protect his job and fight back against a political attack.

Please feel free to quote me. But if you do, be assured I will have this comment available so that the readers can have full context.

It is my solemn belief that this was a political pis* fight between the Demos and the Repubs.

I think the Demos started it by Wilson using the President's statement about Iraq/Saddam trying to puchase yellowcake almost 6 months after he had made it.

He didn't plot to do this, it was merely a target of opportunity to attack the war and the administration only months into the war.

To do so he wrote an article published in the NYT on 7/6/03 in which he claimed to have done something. To have gone to a friend in the DOS the day after Bush's '03 SOTU and claim that Bush was wrong in the SOTU.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

To have done what he claimed he would have had to change his belief in what he had previously told the CIA.

I have read nothing in which Wilson has stated that he didn't tell the CIA in his trip debrief in 3/02 what is included in the Senate Intelligence report

The attempt to purchase was real.