“A LITTLE LITERARY FLAIR:” Here’s more on Joe Wilson’s credibility problems.

UPDATE: Joe Wilson was just on CNN. Here are some observations:

Wilson essentially recycled the defense presented in the Washington Post and Salon. However, new ground was broken when Wolf Blitzer asked him about the misleading information given by Wilson to the Washington Post. Wilson’s explanation to the Senate staff was that he “mis-spoke”. His new explanation to Wolf Blitzer is that he had not read the stories the staffers were asking about; he see now that they have several sources, so he actually mis-spoke to the Senate staff – he should have said that he was “misattributed”.

Our thought – oh, please. The Senate staff had (we imagine) supporting evidence, and possibly statements from the reporters themselves (Wilson’s role in this had already been reported by the WaPo). For Wilson to change his story now, when we the people can’t see all the evidence, is a bit slim.

Follow the link for more. And there’s more here, too.

UPDATE: Greg Djerejian says that Josh Marshall is beginning to admit the seriousness of Wilson’s problems — but only beginning.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A transcript of Wilson’s appearance is now up, and Tom Maguire has further observations on Wilson’s blame-shifting efforts directed at Walter Pincus of the Washington Post.

MORE: I said this on Hugh Hewitt’s show the other night, and it’s probably worth mentioning here, too: The fact that Wilson appears to be deeply untrustworthy and of doubtful competence doesn’t, by itself, make the Plame “outing” scandal go away — though to the extent that evidence comes from Wilson, it is of course less compelling. (And the likelihood that any revelations involving Plame came in this fashion — Q: “Why did we send someone untrustworthy and of doubtful competence, on an important mission to Niger?” A: “Oh, that. His wife pulled strings.” — undercuts the “revenge” motive that many were bruiting about).

However, the main point for which Wilson has been used as a source — the argument that Bush’s State of the Union Speech about Iraq trying to buy uranium in Africa was disproved by Wilson’s report — seems pretty thoroughly undercut by Wilson’s credibility implosion. (And, of course, the whole Niger bit, as The Daily Howler noted, never made sense). For extra clarity, here’s a quote from The Howler:

First, Bush’s “sixteen words” said that Saddam had sought uranium from Africa. Bush didn’t say that Saddam obtained it. But Wilson’s report stressed the opinion that, due to international oversight, it would have been very hard for Saddam to obtain uranium from Niger. This may have been valid (we simply don’t know), but it didn’t address the question at hand—had Saddam been seeking uranium? And, as noted in Catan’s report, when Wilson interviewed Mayaki, the Nigerien official specifically said he got the impression that Iraq was interested in seeking uranium. Clearly, Mayaki’s impression wasn’t dispositive. But it tended to support, not debunk, Bush’s controversial sixteen words.

Second, Bush’s sixteen words said that Saddam was seeking uranium “from Africa.” Even if Wilson somehow showed that no such approach was made in Niger, that obviously couldn’t, by itself, debunk Bush’s wider claim.

Yet many in the media — whose credibility is suffering here as much as Wilson’s is, since they should have known better — took the opposite position. Wilson’s credibility implosion hurts them, too.