Replies

Wilson did accept there were biochemical WMD, but as far as his claim that he supported the war, this is contradicted by (off the top of my head--not being comprhensive here):

1. His donation to Nick Rahall on September 25, 2002, shortly after Rahall's Mission to Baghdad with various antiwar groups.

2. His October 13, 2002 article in San Jose Mercury, widely distributed online by antiwar websites.

3. His promotion of a Win Without War rally on January 31, 2003.

4. His February 2003 article in The Nation titled "Republic or Empire?" which argued that "the upcoming battle for Baghdad and the lengthy occupation of Iraq will utterly undermine any steps forward", in the process attributing the war to "the neoconservatives with a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party" and attempting to discourage the war by predicting dire consequences: "Our global leadership will be undermined as fear gives way to resentment and strategies to weaken our stranglehold. American businessmen already complain about hostility when overseas, and Arabs speak openly of boycotting American products. Foreign capital is fleeing American stocks and bonds; the United States is no longer a friendly destination for international investors."

5. His February 28, 2003 appearance on NOW with Bill Moyers, which made the same points as his Nation article and drew a distinction between a call for war and a call for "coercive" UN inspections, indicating that he only supported the latter.

6. His recruitment by the Middle East Institute as a spokesman at a time the Middle East Institute was opposing the war.

7. His March 4, 2003 appearance on Nightline where he joined an antiwar panel to debate a prowar panel and he agreed with the position of the French ambassador who said "let's give peace a chance", which Wilson rephrased in his own words, "Give disarmament a chance. That is the objective that the international community has agreed upon. That is what the inspectors are trying to do. That is the starting point from which we can work. If Saddam tries to pose obstacles, and he no doubt will, we ratchet up the pressure. It is not the same to say that you have to go from intrusive inspection to invasion, conquest, and a ten-year occupation of Iraq in order to make your point on disarmament."

For references and additional details see esp. the section titled "Wilson becomes an antiwar spokesman" at Wilsongate: Motive, Means, and Opportunity.