The column of the day is Dave Kopel’s, contrasting the Denver Post’s coverage of the Joseph Wilson story before and after the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report: “Press loath to tell rest of Wilson story.” Kopel, by the way, is the relentless fellow who has catalogued “Fifty-nine deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11.”
We discussed the intelligence committee’s unanimous findings of fact regarding Wilson in “Joseph Wilson, Liar,” in “The dishonorable Joseph Wilson,” and in “Joseph Wilson, Liar: Part II.”
It is important to note that Senators Roberts, Bond and Hatch expand on the committee’s unanimous findings of fact regarding Wilson in a statement of “additional views” appended to the committee’s report. Their statement sets forth the conclusions (rejected by the committee as a whole) that follow from the findings in the committee’s report and expand on Wilson’s elaborate public deceptions.
For further background and for discussion of Wilson’s response to the separate statement of Senator Roberts et al., see Captain Ed’s “Wilson fires a water weenie” and Thomas Maguire’s “Joe says it ain’t so.” See also Susan Schmidt’s key Washington Post story of July 10, the occasion of our original “Liar” post on Wilson: “Plame’s input is cited in Niger mission.” Click here for the committee report in PDF.
Using the search engine on the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Web site, it does not appear that the Star Tribune has run a story on the intelligence committee’s findings regarding Wilson’s falsehoods. Rather, in a sidebar to the Strib’s July 10 story on the intelligence committee report (the story by Greg Miller and Mary Curtius syndicated by the Los Angeles Times), the Strib reports:
Though all 17 intelligence committee members agreed on conclusions about flaws in U.S. intelligence before the invasion of Iraq, some felt strongly enough to endorse additional views, including:
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.