Commentary - Lorie Byrd: Now the Wilson fairy tale is set in official stone

The coverage Wilson received from most news reporters was unquestioning. In fact, many reports declared the Libby verdict vindication of Wilson’s claims. The truth surrounding Joe Wilson’s statements, however, should give his adoring fans in liberal circles, and especially in the media, reason to keep him as far from the limelight as possible.

In a Washington Post editorial this week readers were reminded that “Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had “twisted,” if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq.”

“In a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.”

It is understandable that those opposed to the war would rush to put forward the story Wilson told. What is not so easy to understand, however, is why they continued to do so after so many of Wilson’s claims were shown to be demonstrably false.

For almost four years now, the public has been fed a steady diet of Joe-Wilson-truth-teller exposing President Bush’s lies resulting in a retaliatory “outing” of his wife’s covert CIA status. Reporters continued writing that story long after it was proven false.

In 2004, a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee found that rather than debunk Bush’s 16-word State of the Union speech statement that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” the CIA interpreted Wilson’s report as confirmation it was possible Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger. That revelation did little to change most media coverage of the Wilson-Plame story.

Last year when it was revealed that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source of Robert Novak’s column naming Valerie Plame, her husband’s fantasy scenario of a White House determined to destroy him fell apart.

Not only was Armitage not in the White House, he was known to have no interest in bolstering the case for Bush’s war in Iraq. Still, too few media reports of the Wilson-Plame tale note the major elements of it that have been officially discredited.

Why? Are these journalists too invested in the Wilson tale to give up on it, even in the face of compelling evidence that much of it was at best unfounded, and at worst a fantasy in Wilson’s mind? Many liberals still support Wilson because his story reinforces their opposition to the war and portrays the Bush administration as the evil conspiracy so many on the left insist they see.

Because Wilson’s version of events became conventional wisdom years ago, liberals have been able to ignore inconsistent and contrary revelations with no repercussions.

Even though Libby was not charged with outing Plame and Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald says he likely won’t file additional charges, Wilson’s scenario was injected into the trial. One juror even said they wondered “where Karl Rove was. “ (Wilson once said he hoped to see Rove “frog marched” out of the White House for exposing his wife’s identity.)

Wilson and Plame reportedly have agreed with Warner Brothers to do a movie based on their story. Once their self-serving fairy tale version of events is memorialized on film, will anyone on the left point out Wilson’s falsehoods? Unfortunately, in Washington as in tinsel town, once the storyline is set, it’s hard to change it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence it is fictional.

A member of The Examiner Blog Board of Contributors, Lorie Byrd blogs at wizbangblog.com.