URGENT: Joseph Wilson to Bill Moyers in Feb. interview — war with Iraq not just about WMD!

NOW with Bill Moyers ^ | 7/14/03 | Interview transcript

[Wolfstar]

In Depth — Transcript, February 28, 2003, Bill Moyers talks with Joseph C. Wilson, IV

[BEGIN EXERPT]

MOYERS: You are calling for coercive inspections.

WILSON: That's right. Muscular disarmament, coercive inspections, coercive containment, whatever you want to call it. I don't think containment's the right word because we're really talking about disarmament.

MOYERS: Does it seem to you that the President, George Bush, is prepared to accept a disarmed Hussein? Or does he want a dead Hussein?

WILSON: I think he wants a dead Hussein. I don't think there's any doubt about it.

MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. I...
MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true.

[ED. NOTE: This is the only time in the lengthy Moyers interview where Wilson mentions the State of the Union Address. At NO time did he mention any concerns about the sentence regarding British intelligence and Niger. The grousing about that sentence actually began shortly after the SOTUA and went nowhere. Now comes this sudden, new-found "concern" by a man with long ties to the Democrat Party.]

[SNIP]

MOYERS: You think war is inevitable?

WILSON: I think war is inevitable. Essentially, the speech that the President gave at the American Enterprise Institute was so much on the overthrow of the regime and the liberation of the Iraqi people that I suspect that Saddam understands that this is not about disarmament.

WILSON: But I think disarmament is only one of the objectives. And the President has touched repeatedly and more openly on the other objectives in recent speeches including this idea of liberating Iraq and liberating its people from a brutal dictator. And I agree that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator.

And I agree along with everybody else that the Iraqi people could — would well be far better off without Saddam Hussein. The problem really is a war which has us invading, conquering and then subsequently occupying Iraq may not achieve that liberation that we're talking about.

MOYERS: So this is not just about weapons of mass destruction.

WILSON: Oh, no, I think it's far more about re-growing the political map of the Middle East.

[SNIP]

MOYERS: Talk to me a moment about the notion of preemptive action and regime change. Preemptive action means an attack.

WILSON: That's right. That's right. We have historically reserved as part of our right of legitimate self-defense the authority to go in and take out an enemy before that enemy has an opportunity to take us out.

[END EXERPT]

[katze]

With the multitude of posts on FR, I obviously missed that.

[Captain Kirk]

So the war was also about liberating Iraq? Okay, then why aren't the pro-war freepers who use this rationalization on their hind legs demanding that we "liberate" Liberia, the Congo, and every other God-forsaken place in the world?

[MizSterious]

What are the connections between the Wilson duo and the Clintons? There must be some, because I'm positive Hillary is behind this.

[PogySailor]

Thanks for pinging me to this.

FYI - I just heard a ABC radio report that the "forged" documents in question came from ITALY in late 2001!!!

[cyncooper]

Oh, katze, I didn't want to imply you ought to have seen it, but I didn't want the impression left that Wilson's entire history had been ignored on FR.

As for Cheney asking him to go---that tale was begun by Wilson and is twisted and inflated, as many of Wilson's other claims are. The left, (politicians and media for awhile), picked up the Wilson version. The media has published many blatant lies like that over the last week.

Was V.P. Cheney interested in and tracking the Niger story? Most likely and as it should be. But he wasn't directing its investigation and did not send Wilson or ever hear the results of the Wilson trip in the form of a briefing.

[katze]

IMO, much remains to be learned. But, thanks for your imput.

[Wolfstar]

Thank you for taking the time to clarify.

[Wolfstar]

Somehow we in the grassroots need to bring this to the media's attention. I urge anyone who sees this post and who is so inclined to email the info to your favorite local and/or national talk radio personality, or to write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

[Wolfstar]

Thanks for the link to your blog. Will definitely read the info you have there.

[Wolfstar]

Interesting info on Wilson's wife. Obviously, her credibility is in question, as are her motives for recommending that her husband be the one to look into the Iraq-Niger deal. Makes me wonder how we can trust Wilson's word on the Iraq-Niger link given his early stand opposing the Iraq War and his long-standing ties to big-name Dems.

I love this President, but do think he has a blind spot when it comes to expecting Dems to "change the tone." We are all human, so all have our weaknesses. The President is no exception, sigh.

[Wolfstar]

Thank you for adding that excellent exerpt to this thread. The more the truth comes out, the more this whole "sudden firestorm" stinks to high heaven. Even people like Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke are going along with it for some reason.

[Wolfstar]

Doug, it is at least sedition, if not outright treason.

[MJY1288]

Here is my take on this whole deal with Wilson and his wife, I believe he went to Niger with a specific result in mind, he asked a few people some questions knowing how they would answer. He says he gave a verbal report back to the CIA and expected that it would be relayed to the VP's office. But if you read what the CIA says about his report, there was nothing in it of value either way because of the questions Wilson asked. (Kinda like a COP asking a known drug dealer if he has any drugs for sale, you can expect an answer of "NO").

Time went by and Wilson saw an opportunity to try an embarrass the POTUS with an OP-ED in the NYT's once this issue came up. I believe he didn't think it would be this big of a deal and that is why he is not giving interviews or making any statements. I just hope he and his wife are made to come forward and explain why she would send someone with no experience to investigate something as serious as illegal Uranium sales, my guess is she sent him on a mini vacation on our nickel

[Wolfstar]

Wilson worked for Al Gore and Tom Foley early in his career. During the 2nd Clinton term, he served in the administration — inside the White House — as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council.

[Howlin]

What do you know about his wife?

[Wolfstar]

I agree with your analysis in every particular except one, where you say, "Time went by and Wilson saw an opportunity to try an embarrass the POTUS with an OP-ED in the NYT's once this issue came up."

Actually, the issue first came up earlier in the year (will try to piece together the timeline and post). In earlier interviews, such as the one with Moyers shortly after the State of the Union speech, Wilson had every opportunity to make his concerns known much more contemporaneously with that speech. But he did not. My understanding is that his NYT op-ed is what started this particular commotion over the past week.

The question is, why now?

We must never, ever forget that the media are corporations, and like all corporations, they are in business to make money. In the media's case stories are their product — when you read "story," think "tale."

So the answer to why almost certainly is that it was timed to be published when the President was overseas, and when the WH press secretary position was changing hands. This is also at the beginning of the traditionally slow summer news period. Those behind this hit piece struck at a time guaranteed to catch the WH off guard, and when the media needed some story to flog for awhile to fill up summer air time and column inches.

[Wolfstar]

Nothing, other than what I've read here. If I have some time tonight, I'll see what I can dig up. Although, since she's CIA, there probably won't be much to find.

[mware]

why did Joseph Wilson's wife, who is an operative in the CIA, recommend her husband for the sensitive job of investigating the Iraq/Niger Uranium connection when he has abdsolutely no experience in this area?

I need to ask you, where did you get this information????

[PoisedWoman]

. And folks should ask: WHO forged the document and WHY?

That's the smartest comment I've read about this alleged "case." I did read your blog and hope you can follow up and chase down the answer. Certainly, in addition to Russians and French, many in our own government, probably Clinton appointees and agents, might be suspected. I hope the Bushites are on the case as we speak. You think?

[MJY1288]

From Robert Novak's piece in this past Sunday's Washington Post,