Mrs. Wilson seems to have trouble keeping her story straight.

This should generate some traffic.

The linked article is a good reminder that the current Congressional investigation isn't the first time this issue has been reviewed by Congress or the federal government.

Before I continue: I don't suspect Valerie to ever be held accountable for anything (she is a bureaucrat after all). That said, this is the first time I heard anyone try and provide evidence that the Administration intimidated any CIA official (the concerned junior officer). Sounds like the junior officer is unfit for their position if they get bent out of shape when someone from the White House (their direct customer after all) calls them. Valerie's new memory is pretty weak tea.

My congratulations. One Senator now remembers her testimony differently. Okay, Senator Bond should demand that Valerie Plame Wilson appear before a Senate sub-committee and explain the discrepancies.

That said, I predict the White House will desire that this entire episode disappear from public view as fast as possible, except of course in the blog-o-sphere echo chambers.

Let guys like Byron York offer commentary? Sure. But actual hearings? Too risky.

Me? I would be pleased if Mrs. Wilson appeared before a Senate sub-committee so we could indeed get to the bottom of everything associated with this mess.

He doesn't just "remember her testimony differently," Bill. He doubtless has transcripts of it. One wonders how she thought that she could get away with this.

One wonders how she thought that she could get away with this.

She may have calculated that the people who call her a liar would not even have the courage to go to the hearing.

She didn't "swear an oath" in the recent public testimony.

Everyone acted as if she was, but the key words weren't 'I swear ...' but 'I promise'.

"She may have calculated that the people who call her a liar would not even have the courage to go to the hearing." by doesn't have enough courage to even attach a name.

I have the courage and would have been happy to go but I don't think I had the chance.

Al: Is that legally significant?

After all, "I affirm" is just as binding as "I swear", so I see no reason why "I promise" shouldn't be...

If I read correctly, and I think I do because I've heard this before, it isn't just her earlier testimony or a transcript of that earlier testimony that is contradicting her testimony of last week. There is a memo that the Bipartisan Senate investigation obtained, written by Mrs Wilson, that was clearly a recommendation by her that here husband be sent to Niger. There was also a statement from another CIA employee who testified before the Senate committee that Mrs Wilson brought up the possibility of her husband making the trip to Niger.

Of course this would be leading story news on every network were it damaging to Bush, but since it supports the White House claims it is quietly forgotten by the talking heads.