Nobody Could Have Predicted...

From Meet the Press October 23, 2005

Mr. Stephen Hayes from The Weekly Standard

We have to remember, Joe Wilson came back, and when he went public, first anonymously then later with his name attached, claims that he had debunked forgeries that suggested an Iraq-Niger uranium deal, the chronology doesn't work. Wilson was in Niger in February of 2002. The U.S. government came into possession of those forgeries in October of 2002. He could not have done what he said he had done. So if you're in the White House at the time, why would you not say, "Gosh, who is this guy? Why is he saying these things that we know aren't true? And how do we fix this?"

From Joseph Wilson’s “What I Didn’t Find in Africa”

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. 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. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival

(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.)

As you can see for yourself, Mr. Hayes is simply making things up. First of all, Wilson claims Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told him the claims had been debunked which may or may not be true, but that is not what Hayes alleged.

Secondly, Wilson claims to not have personally seen the memorandum, so it’s unlikely he would claim to have debunked it.

Third, just because the government claims it did not come into possession of the document until October, does not mean that they had not seen it or learned of its contents.

Fourth, since Wilson never claimed to have seen it, what difference does it make when the actual document made its way to the U.S.
Fifth, just because they did not receive the document until October does not mean that is actually when the document was received. Would they lie about that, perchance?

Finally, why wasn’t Hayes’ statement challenged? Why the factually challenged defense of the White House's motives for attacking a critic?