Joseph Wilson on "the core stuff"
From that February 2003 PBS television panel discussion, a year after Wilson's return from Niger (but before he went to work for John Kerry):JIM LEHRER: You agree Ambassador Wilson? From his point of view, what's the point of being there if you don't have your weapons of mass destruction?
JOSEPH WILSON: Well, again I think he also sees them as necessary to defending himself against what he believes will be an American assault on his government and his life. There is no incentive for him even to give up a little bit of them.
I agree that he is not suicidal, also. He is the consummate survivalist and we may get to Baghdad and not find him there. I find difficult to believe gel to someplace like Tripoli and end up being Qaddafi's trained lion to be brought out to impress the visitors.
JIM LEHRER: But, all three of you agree if anyone is sitting around expecting at the last minute Saddam Hussein is going to have some kind of revelation and pull back and say, okay, here are my weapons of mass destruction, let's have no war, forget it, right?
JOSEPH WILSON: Yeah. I think the chances are pretty good you'll get something of semblance of cooperation, but the core stuff we'll have to go find it.
Lehrer at several points used the phrase "alleged" in front of WMDs. But Wilson never once used this word.
Tucked in here also is a tidbit from Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector:Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix fed that today, saying Iraq must change its behavior or face the consequences of another harsh report about its failure to cooperate, and thus military action.
The last time we had gone into Iraq, with confident intelligence reports that Hussein was five years away from an atomic weapon, it turned out that he was less than a year away. Had President Bush left him there, the media would have instantly blamed Bush for allowing Hussein to attack America.
Just as they blamed Bush for "ignoring" the August 2001 memo that said that bin Ladin was NOT likely to attack using aircraft (reversing the intelligence community's thoughts in July 2001).
===|==============/ Level Head
JOSEPH WILSON: Well, again I think he also sees them as necessary to defending himself against what he believes will be an American assault on his government and his life. There is no incentive for him even to give up a little bit of them.
I agree that he is not suicidal, also. He is the consummate survivalist and we may get to Baghdad and not find him there. I find difficult to believe gel to someplace like Tripoli and end up being Qaddafi's trained lion to be brought out to impress the visitors.
JIM LEHRER: But, all three of you agree if anyone is sitting around expecting at the last minute Saddam Hussein is going to have some kind of revelation and pull back and say, okay, here are my weapons of mass destruction, let's have no war, forget it, right?
JOSEPH WILSON: Yeah. I think the chances are pretty good you'll get something of semblance of cooperation, but the core stuff we'll have to go find it.
Lehrer at several points used the phrase "alleged" in front of WMDs. But Wilson never once used this word.
Tucked in here also is a tidbit from Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector:Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix fed that today, saying Iraq must change its behavior or face the consequences of another harsh report about its failure to cooperate, and thus military action.
The last time we had gone into Iraq, with confident intelligence reports that Hussein was five years away from an atomic weapon, it turned out that he was less than a year away. Had President Bush left him there, the media would have instantly blamed Bush for allowing Hussein to attack America.
Just as they blamed Bush for "ignoring" the August 2001 memo that said that bin Ladin was NOT likely to attack using aircraft (reversing the intelligence community's thoughts in July 2001).
===|==============/ Level Head