I don't think that claim holds up. It's based on an
article by Susan Schmidt at washingtonpost.com which later had to be corrected. Am I missing something?
"The former ambassador said that he may have misspoken to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were forged."
At issue here, an article in The Washington Post in which you were the source, you acknowledge being the source. You spoke of forged documents long before anyone ever knew that they were forged.
WILSON: No, no, that's wrong.
First of all, I was one of several sources.
Secondly, that article appeared in June. And, in fact, on March 7th of that year, Dr. El Baradei had described to the U.N. that these documents were forgeries.
In addition to that, on March 24th, I think, for the March 30th issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh wrote a long article about it, in which he laid out the facts based upon an interview he had with the International Atomic Energy Agency...
BLITZER: So when the committee says that you told them you had misspoken, what did you misspeak?
WILSON: Well, actually, what I misspoke was, when I misspoke to the committee, when I spoke to the staff -- this interview took place 15 months after The Washington Post article appeared. I did not have a chance to review the article. They did not show me the article.
cnn.com transcript ...the tale begins at the end of 2001, when third-rate forged documents turned up in West Africa purporting to show the sale by Niger to Iraq of tons of "yellowcake" uranium. Italy's intelligence service obtained the documents and shared them with British spooks, who passed them on to Washington. Mr. Cheney's office got wind of this and asked the C.I.A. to investigate.
The agency chose a former ambassador to Africa to undertake the mission, and that person flew to Niamey, Niger, in the last week of February 2002.
Kristoff, CNN.com Friday, June 13, 2003