Urge Incontinence

Joseph Wilson December 2002: "An aggressive campaign on weapons of mass destruction may have the intended or unintended consequences of leading to a coup, causing Saddam's generals to move. We may want to therefore focus on high value targets. For example, right now, when an American or allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone is "painted", we go after the air defense site, the sergeants and the corporals manning the post. Instead, we should go after the headquarters issuing the order--this affects colonels and generals. We need to focus on global public opinion. We need to present evidence that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, not that we are overthrowing an Arab regime because we don't like it. I don't believe Saddam will go quietly. He will use every weapon in his arsenal, and he will cause trouble for us wherever possible."

March 24, 2003 A former U-S diplomat in Iraq, Joseph Wilson, says it is important to keep the Turks and Kurds from fighting each other. Ambassador Wilson says a smaller "war within the war" (for greater Iraq) could break out if Turkish and Kurdish forces clashed for control of Kirkuk -- the capital of the northern oil producing region. (Especially if one has a vested interest in Istanbul, etc.)

April 3, 2003 Wilson in a live online discussion:
Question from Boston, MA: Mr. Wilson. Thank you for taking our questions. What happens if we do not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Joseph C. Wilson: Whether we find them or not is now immaterial. The liberation is now the rationale. If we don't find them, discussion about them will cease and we will focus on the other reasons the administration has articulated. If we do find them, world public opinion will only change on the margins.

Question from Bethesda, MD: I don't understand. In the first answer you say the rational is liberation so WMD do not matter. While I couldn't disagree more, in the second answer you say this isn't a war of liberation. Does this make sense?
Joseph C. Wilson: The administration has offered a menu of reasons for the war. WMD was one of them. The answer was to the question of whether finding WMD would make a difference in how the war is perceived. And the answer is no. Here in the US we have bought off on the other reasons so for us it does not matter. Overseas, they think there are any number of other reasons behind what we are doing so again if we find WMD it won't change their position as to why we are doing what we are. The issue is really transfer of WMD to terrorist groups which had never occurred before in Saddam's regime but now that he is toast don't be surprised if as his last act of defiance he does precisely that. As to liberation, we will see a year from now if the Iraqis feel they are liberated. That will help determine victory in this conflict.

Question from London, UK: The liberation of the Iraqi people was not the cause or the reason of this war? Who said the Iraqi people want to have the U.S. liberate them?
Joseph C. Wilson: Agree. But we are where we are so we need to make the best of it.

Why would the CIA send a Bush critic to check out the Niger/uranium story? When did Wilson decide not to "make the best of it" and become a vocal and vehement anti-Bush and anti-war critic, sometime in May or June 2003? And to answer the question of how Novak (or anyone) learned Valerie Wilson's maiden name, perhaps they checked this page. Is this "gate" about "spite" as the left says, or "smear" as the right claims, or just pee on all of us?