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.

What we do know is that the CIA's report, based on Wilson's debriefing, said:

Purchase NO

Attempt YES

That is not what it said. What it said was that Malaki, thought that a delegation was seeking yellowcake.

Far from proof of any attempt.

If you expect me to tell you why something happened, or may not have happened, almost 5 years ago you will have to just expect.
I have no idea as to if, or if not. Neither do you.

What we do know is that the CIA's report, based on Wilson's debriefing, said:

Purchase NO

Attempt YES

As to what the meaning of the word "significant" is to Bush when it comes to yellowcake, I do not know. Neither do you.

And it wasn't a "report."

And it gets even better.

Tenet interceded to keep the claim out of a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, but by Dec. 19 it reappeared in a State Department "fact sheet." After that, the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for the 15 agencies that then constituted the U.S. intelligence community. Did Iraq and Niger discuss a uranium sale, or not? If they had, the Pentagon would need to reconsider its ties with Niger.

The council's reply, drafted in a January 2003 memo by the national intelligence officer for Africa, was unequivocal: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Four U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that the memo, which has not been reported before, arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.

The real answer is that the NYT article is the lynch pin of this whole affair. Nothing would have happened without it. The accuracy of it then becomes of extreme interest to anyone intersted in  how a political pis* fight put journalists in jail and an assistant to the VP in danger of prision.

  Wilson's debriefing could not possibly have proven or disproven the existence of WMD in Iraq. Iraq could have WMD even if there had not been tentative attempts to procure yellowcake in Iraq, and it could have not had WMD even if it had been established that it completed transactions and did get it.

  The point is that based exactly on what Wilson and everyone else admits he did tell the CIA he could have wriiten a column saying that he believed the mere fact that there were some overtures from Iraq meant that Iraq was a threat. Had he done so everyone here would have sought to discredit him while the Administration would have defended him.  

   The sides lined up as they did only because of what he later said HE THOUGHT were the significance of his meager findings.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Because the first sentence is accurate, and the Kay report confirmed it again. Now to the 16 famous words

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

First, if all you have to argue is the definition of "significant," then you have nothing. As I said, I don't know what "significant" means to Bush when he is talking about "yellowcake" and neither do you.

We do know what the Butler Report had to say about the subject:

British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim

And the Brits haven't changed.

Wilson's report did not confirm that the Iraqis attempted to purchase.

Again. Wilson did not write a report, nor did he issue a report. He wrote this article that was published on 7/6/03 in the NYT.

In the article he noted that he had concluded that Iraq had not purchased.

He made no claim one way or other about the attempt to purchase.

I speculate that he did not because it would have detracted from the message that he was trying to convey. That he knew that Bush was wrong. By the continued use of the "did not purchase" theme and by not referencing what Bush had actually said, the impression is created that Bush claimed purchase and that Wilson had told the CIA differently.

But we now know that impression would have been false.

We also know that his claim to have told someone at the DOS on 1/29/02 that Bush was wrong is highly suspect and his claim was wrong, unless he had received classified information that no one has yet seen.

Do you remember the sin of omission??? Did anyone ever teach you about that?

Wilson's report did not confirm that the Iraqis attempted to purchase.

Now in the event your claim regards the Senate Intelligence Committe's report regarding what Wilson told the CIA when being debriefed, which Wilson admits happened in his article, we have repeatedly noted what the CIA said.

.... The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake ....

Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(                    ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations."The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.

....The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue.... 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.

Link

You may continue to believe that your understanding of what the Iraq meant to the Nigerian PM who was there is better than what the Nigerian understood.

I will accept the belief of an experienced politican who was there and who had no axe to grind.

And thanks for:

1999 was not recent

We're not talking about from then until now, although I suspect you have a tendancy to relate everythinf to self and now:

From June of '99 to Feb '02 is two and a half years.