Why ??

[kentuck]

One of the basic questions all good journalists must ask? Why did they feel the need to go after Joe Wilson? People are critical of the Bush White House everyday, but they don't feel the need to go after them as a political enemy? Why did they go after Joe Wilson?

As far as we know, they did not go after Wilson when he returned from Niger with his report that there was no proof whatsoever that Saddam was getting yellowcake from Niger. Only after he wrote his opinion in the NYTimes was he attacked? Is that not correct? So why? So long as it was not given to the public it was OK. But once it went into the Times, they went after him. Because what he was saying was a threat to their plan to invade Iraq. They already had the troops in line. They had been bringing the troops into Kuwait for months. They were not going to be influenced by a report that said there was no danger of a "mushroom " cloud. Joe Wilson was a threat to their little conspiracy to sell the war to Congress and the American people.

[billybob537]

1. Being an enemy

is nowhere near as damadging as "TRUTH TELLERS"

[displacedtexan]

2. Cui bono?

Who benefits?

The question that goes to motive.

[kentuck]

4. Yes...

Who?

[Wetzelbill]

3. it seemed like a major overreaction too

Why would the most powerful people on earth attack a former mid-level diplomat like that? It's pretty bizarre once you think about it. If they had just ignored him they would have been much better off, I would think. Especially since they totally pissed the guy off and he's been fighting for his wife and against them ever since. Joe Wilson was even on Letterman, can you imagine that ever happening if they had just left him alone.