If the State of the Union speech (SOTUS) was in January, why did Wilson wait until July to talk?

I easily found some very interesting information.

This chat transcript from the Washington Post on April 3, 2003 asks Wilson -- in his capacity as our last diplomatic representative to Iraq before the first Iraq war -- his opinions on the new war.

They introduce him:

====

Joseph C. Wilson was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from 1988 to 1991. During "Desert Shield" he was acting ambassador and was responsbile [sic] for the freeing of several hundred American hostages. He was the last official American to meet with Saddam Hussein before "Desert Storm."
====

In that chat, he mentions:


It will be different from Vietnam in that there will not be an active war once we mop up but rather an active resistance that will emerge. Assymetric warfare on their turf....

We will run the country for awhile and return it to Iraq piece by piece. Think of the occupation in terms of ten years. And then only in the most positive conditions. If there is resistance it will test our political will....

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....

...if [Saddam] can disappear possibly some general will surrender while Saddam tries to mount a guerilla campaign. He is getting a bit long in the tooth to play Che Guevara but he is a survivor.

Somehow, it makes sense to me that he might wait from January to July to fling his "j'accuse" at Bush.

By July, it should have been obvious that many of Wilson's worst fears about Iraq were being realized.

This was made poignantly manifest by the increasing casualties from occupation resistance, including a ramp up in casualties immediately before and after Bush's 7/2/03 "Bring them on!" gaffe.

While it is tempting to see this purely as an upwelling of diplomatic and patriotic disgust with our GI George figurine commander-in-chief, it's also canny politics.

Wilson had previously worked as a research fellow in Senator Al Gore's office, and for Speaker of the House Tom Foley -- both prominent Democrats. As a diplomat he might not have had any officially, but he might be a Democratic partisan.

This only gives the administration more traditional reasons to engage in dirty tricks against the man.

And ruining his wife's career -- and possibly threatening her life -- with a single phone call... Well, I can see how that might be too much of a temptation to a hot tempered, hot-blooded Republican neoconservative of the disposition of, say, Karl Rove.

The great thing about this is that, as Pelosi calls for a special prosecutor, the investigation will likely be pressured to move beyond the leak to an independent inquiry into the original 16 words in the SOTUS.

Although Ashcroft is empowered to appoint a special prosecutor, he is going to be under pressure to appoint someone of impeccable neutrality. He's in a no win position.

My father said that professional sports existed for two reasons: to condition young men for military service, and to distract citizens from realizing how fun it would be to use those statistical and strategic braincells for political engagement.