Hitchy uses the occassion of a new book by Joe Wilson to take a fresh critical look at Wilson's accounting of events. Why did Wilson initially claim incorrectly that the CIA played no role in his selection for the job? Does such a claim constitute a lie? Why does the anti-war activists take Wilson's assessment as the alpha and omega of a Hussein-Niger nuclear connection?
Revealing that Wilson's wife played an essential role in his getting selected for the job undermines Wilson's own false claim to have been selected purely due to his reputation (a claim essential to his authority on the subject) as an expert on the subject. Thus there exists an explanation for revealing his wife's role independant of the left's claim that this revelation served purely to "punish" the wife by "exposing" her. If the left thinks that Bush and Cheney are clever enough to fake a swing at Wilson as a suckerpunch at his wife, why can't they consider that Wilson and his wife were clever enough to set a trap for Bush and Cheney (who the left insist are inept), Wilson go public, giving the Chenushes two bad choices: accept Wilson's false claim to be such an expert on the topic that his reputation would attract others to select him for the job, or falsify that claim by revealing the role of Wilson's wife, permitting the two of them to then counter-punch with feigned outrage over "exposure"?
It defies logic that if they were so protective of her status that Wilson would go public with an assignment that he obtained with the documented assistence of his wife. Meanwhile, logic dictates that the targets of his public proclaimation would undermine his proclaimed expertise by exposing that his wife, not his reputation alone, got him his assignment, regardless of the impact of this revelation on the wife.