Thompson: Saddam "Clearly" Had WMD And A Nuke Program
During a campaign stop in Iowa today, Fred Thompson unambiguously stood by the premise of the Iraq War — and went so far as to say Saddam Hussein "clearly" had weapons of mass destruction and a nuclear program that posed a threat.
"Saddam Hussein, today, had we not gone in, would be sitting on this power keg and be in control of the whole thing," Thompson said. "He would have been the new dictator of that entire region in my estimation. He is — was — a dangerous irrational man who, by this time, would have been well on his way to having the nuclear capability himself."
Thompson also seemed to say that the failure to find WMD was simply a matter of particulars, of where and when America has looked.
"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD," he said. "He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program, and in my estimation his intent never did change."
Comments (54)
Captain USA wrote on October 1, 2007 9:40 PM:Not to mention those balsa drones!
Brrr... those drones gave me goosebumps.
Hank Essay wrote on October 1, 2007 9:42 PM:And here my friends is what the GOP has become:
"...We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD..."
Um, yeah, Uncle Fred.
-
Did he really say "power" keg? Is that like a keg with generator inside?
Well I guess W is sitting on a beer keg.
Superba wrote on October 1, 2007 9:43 PM:Is it true his brain is powered by a 25-watt bulb powers 'neath his oh-so-virile, balding pate?
seanh wrote on October 1, 2007 9:45 PM:Speaking of dangerous irrational men...
CC wrote on October 1, 2007 9:53 PM:The Hollywood culture has fried poor Frederick's mind. Or maybe he was hanging around a Fox News set too long and his mind vapor locked.
Minion wrote on October 1, 2007 10:03 PM:Clearly, Saddam Hussein was after super secret UFO technology. Had we not stopped him, and had a UFO actually crashed in Iraq, he could have back-engineered their technology and would now be at a point where his zero-point energy sub-light orbital plasma cannons could fire on any city in the world with nothing more than a thought from his cybernetically altered super-evil-genius brain.
Thank God George Bush stopped him while he still could.
BD wrote on October 1, 2007 10:04 PM:I guess this would be another one of those times where Fred Thompson has failed to have any knowledge whatsoever of a basic issue. Someone should introduce him to google for the simpler topics, you know, start easy and work his way up to wikipedia, and then maybe by his 90th birthday he can try a newspaper on for size. Just a thought.
Ross Best wrote on October 1, 2007 10:07 PM:Nothing like a touch of senility to prompt comparisons to Ronald Reagan.
busdrivermike wrote on October 1, 2007 10:12 PM:Well one thing is sure:
He is intellectually honest enough to be the Republican's Presidential candidate.
Sully18 wrote on October 1, 2007 10:16 PM:Another one who has no honor.Another one who has half a brain.And another one whose mean-spirited.
When will we ever learn? God this is sickening.
And another one who was a lousy actor.
Old Fred doesn't know what is real or a movie script.
"I'm a politician, which means I'm a cheat and liar, and when I'm kissing babies, I', stealing their lollipops, but it also means I keep my options open"
-Jeffery Pelt, The Presidents National Security Advisor-
The Hunt for Red October
Randy wrote on October 1, 2007 10:28 PM:"And, I think it has become strikingly apparent to everyone in America, except the Democrats in control of Congress, that had we not stopped Saddam Hussein, he might well now be the King of America, and we would all long for the days when courageous presidents went to war to defend our country"
Fred Thomson
speaking to his 13 year old bride
Alright! Thompson's doing his part by confusing the issues. That's why he's there, after all: To look like the schmuck so that none of the other candidates will be portrayed as such.
Anonymouse wrote on October 1, 2007 10:33 PM:Cool...
One more idiot who has made a fortune fooling people into believing he is something he is not... running for office.
I just hope he gets the Republican nomination. It'll make for a fun election... especially after the 1st reporter asks where his source for the data is...
fuzz wrote on October 1, 2007 10:52 PM:Source for the data? Why, it's his very own "estimation". If you can't trust yourself then who can you trust, right?
Am I the only one imagining Sam Waterston as Jack McCoy making his famous open-mouthed "you gotta be shitting me" face?
Dominic Holland wrote on October 1, 2007 10:52 PM:Fred for president!
Go Fred go!
Wait, is it "I'm with Fred" or "I'm with Stupid?"
What we do not see is the condemnation and derision that such delusional beliefs should (and would if a Democrat were involved) be prompted from the MSM. Frankly, this nation has lost its Democracy. I firmly believe that the current fools who form the base of the Republican party will eventually rise up and violently deal with these idiots.
I will happily await for the day when these right wing Republican and pundits will be dragged out into the street and put to death as they well deserve.
PretzelsOne wrote on October 1, 2007 11:06 PM:Fred Thompson is God's gift to the Democratic Party. Let us hope the Democrats don't...ahem...blow it by trying to keep him from being nominated. On the other hand, John McCain, who I once admired, now seems to be so crazy and irrational that he just might eclipse Thompson as the Democrats best bet. Oh, Lord, keep these Republicans talking.
jp wrote on October 1, 2007 11:06 PM:Minion is correct, except the UFO DID crash:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/31/42821.html
Fred just doesn't want to sound "crazy" or anything so he's leaving out the UFO part.
Righteous Bubba wrote on October 1, 2007 11:14 PM:Instead of pretending to like Alan Keyes I may have to pretend to like Fred Thompson.
jeffgee wrote on October 1, 2007 11:24 PM:It's hilarious watching the Republican candidates falling over themselves trying to dig deeper into the hole Bush has dug. Each more ignorant than the last and none has learned a thing in the past 6 years except how to pander.
Dennis M wrote on October 1, 2007 11:29 PM:How could Gramps possibly remember those days. It was way before Terri Schiavo.
I guess John McCain can point to Fred and say, "Who you callin' old?"
Pietr Hitzig wrote on October 1, 2007 11:30 PM:I wonder if Thompson is as ashamed that he is a Harvard Alumnus as I am?
Dan wrote on October 2, 2007 12:07 AM:He's right, actually - his exact words, "had had", suggest that at some point prior to the war Saddam possessed WMD. Saying Saddam "had had" WMD is consistent with the belief, shared by most rational people, that Saddam destroyed his WMD stockpiles sometime after the first Gulf War.
Compare:
"I had cancer when I got engaged"
"I had had cancer when I got engaged"
To clarify with a better example:
"When the police raided my house, I had breakfast." This means that I was eating breakfast while the police were raiding my house (or that, in response to the raid, I decided to have breakfast).
"When the police raided my house, I had had breakfast." This means that I had already eaten by the time they arrived.
In Iraq terms:
"At the time of the invasion, Saddam had WMDs." False.
"At the time of the invasion, Saddam had had WMDs." True.
acf wrote on October 2, 2007 12:32 AM:You have to wonder if he actually believes the things he says, or if he's just doing the pandering thing because he's trying to run for president. It escapes me, with all that's come out in the past 4 years, how anyone can still be spouting the same old lines about WMD, Saddam, and his threat to us. Haven't they figured out that we just don't believe Bush, or them when they say that stuff. Of course, the audience that they're preaching to, Republican primary voters, apparently still do. Then again, don't they realize that the majority of us who don't believe those lies, can hear them, and will remember it when the presidential election rolls around next year.
acf wrote on October 2, 2007 12:35 AM:You have to wonder if he actually believes the things he says, or if he's just doing the pandering thing because he's trying to run for president. It escapes me, with all that's come out in the past 4 years, how anyone can still be spouting the same old lines about WMD, Saddam, and his threat to us. Haven't they figured out that we just don't believe Bush, or them when they say that stuff. Of course, the audience that they're preaching to, Republican primary voters, apparently still do. Then again, don't they realize that the majority of us who don't believe those lies, can hear them, and will remember it when the presidential election rolls around next year.
Ferruge wrote on October 2, 2007 12:42 AM:Somehow, I can imagine a Democrat losing to this dim bulb. After seeing the horrid spectacle that is our "Democratically controlled" Congress, it does seem plausible.
When it comes to the Repulican nomination, obviously factuality and common sense will play no part. It all comes down to truthiness and chest-thumping, which the Repuls do quite well - no thinking required. Add in that the Repuls automatically will get 40% of the vote regardless of how many kittens they stomp on, and it'll be a horse race even if ol' Unca Fred continues to spout this bilgeclabber.
Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on October 2, 2007 12:46 AM:Since wh and vp man have no more cred they have the people pretending to run for some office continue with noise.
Sadman should have been arrested.The end.
At least the lights and water worked.
This guy needs a script.He's lost without a writer.
Unfortunate as it is, a close reading of the CNN report doesn't clearly illustrate that Thompson has proved that he is a nut-case. The "king of the whole power keg" routine is clearly an opinion, a kind of ex-post-facto projection onto a future that we'll never see, the sort of "analysis" that might go down well in Iowa, Oklahoma, and points in between. But the "had had" WMD line is not so entirely out of the question...as in "had had" chemical weapons like those used against Kurdish civilians in Iraq, for example. Thompson may be a Harvard alumnus, but let's not let wishful thinking about his senility seize the day prematurely.
SeeDee wrote on October 2, 2007 1:14 AM:Dan: Saddam neither 'had' nor 'had had' WMD's when George W. Bush and Cheney 'invaded'...Believe if you'll check, Saddam's 'nuclear' ambitions were dealt a 'fatal' blow by the Israelis at Osirik some quarter-century ago.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Israelis would have acted AGAIN if there had been the slightest sliver of truth in any 'rumor' of an Iraqi quest to re-form a WMD program in the 1990's.
The fact is, that the 'No Fly Zones' (as enforced by the Clinton administration) had served to channel Saddam's efforts to attain 'greatness' in other directions...more of a personal ambitions type.
chupacabra wrote on October 2, 2007 1:23 AM:>>> I wonder if Thompson is as ashamed that he is a Harvard Alumnus as I am?
Freddie's bio says Memphis State and Vanderbilt Law.
Did I miss something?
Dan wrote on October 2, 2007 1:24 AM:The nuclear thing is obviously stupid, but the definition of WMD usually means nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (NBC). Saddam "had had" biological and chemical weapons, including sarin, tabun, and VX; he'd used them pretty openly in the Iran-Iraq war and his suppression of the Kurdish uprising. They were presumably deactivated and destroyed during the 1990s in response to pressure by the UN and Clinton.
Arabflora wrote on October 2, 2007 1:58 AM:Don't forget that Sadam had, among his vast arsenal of WMDs... sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
I know this for a FACT, I heard it somewhere.
richard wolstein wrote on October 2, 2007 4:10 AM:I am no fan of Thompson and am a loyal reader of TPM-but the difference betweeen "had" and "had had" is so obvious tht I am disturbed by your failing to see the difference and by so doing heaping scorn on Thompson.
I am disappointed in your conclusion that FT is whacky, which he well my be, but based on this statement he seems to be in the clear. Your site suffers when you make either a quick judgement or an attempt to demean a candidate not based on the facts.
I always wondered at the casting of Fred Thompson as the admiral in The Hunt for Red October. He seemed completely out of place in that role - just as out of place and clueless as he'll be should he wish to pull a Reagan, part deux at the White House Follies.
Gary Vincent wrote on October 2, 2007 7:43 AM:If this is indeed true, shouldn't be really, really worried about where those weapons went then? You know, instead of worrying about the bomb that Iran might have in several years?
CrookedInc.Com
Fred must have been loaded. Thought he was back on the set of Red October:
"Saddamy don't take a dump, son, without a plan."
BonghitForJesus wrote on October 2, 2007 8:04 AM:Saddam had opposable thumbs. Case closed.
Pastor Doodah wrote on October 2, 2007 8:43 AM:Know what this country needs? Another senile mummer in the whitehouse setting insane foreign policy.
soggy wrote on October 2, 2007 8:50 AM:Being able to pull off lines like those w/ a straight face is where those acting skills will really come in handy.
Pat wrote on October 2, 2007 8:56 AM:Anonymouse said, "I just hope he gets the Republican nomination. It'll make for a fun election... especially after the 1st reporter asks where his source for the data is..."
What makes you think reporters will ask for his source? Journalism in America seems to be dead, replaced by stenography. All those Republican candidates scare the hell out of me.
fuzz wrote on October 2, 2007 9:05 AM:Gah! He's still a nutjob either way, but for whatever reason my brain only processed the one "had" when I read this last night.
Steve wrote on October 2, 2007 9:24 AM:I have to agree with Richard on this one. Nothing he said in the article was technically incorrect. Saddam did once have WMD. The tone of this write up is misleading since it seems to indicate that Fred is stating he had WMD when we invaded this time. That is not what I took from reading the CNN article.
I do find Fred’s argument that because Saddam did once have WMD that that justified invading Iraq a second time to be ridiculous. Of course we've been hearing that line for some time now. I have yet to read about Fred saying anything other than boilerplate conservative statements. I'm beginning to wonder if he has an original thought in his head.
Can we focus on the more bizzare quotation in here? Plenty of people make / have made various assertions about WMD with reference to Iraq.
However, Thompson also says, "He (Saddam) would have been the new dictator of that entire region in my estimation."
I'm sure we can all agree that Ahmadinejad, the House of Saud, King Hussein, Assad, the Kuwaiti royal family, the Israeli government and all of the Emirates would gladly have submitted to Saddam's dictatorship by now had we not acted. Right?
Don't forget - Saddam will be dictator of the whole region if we do nothing now. And Ahmadinejad is about to be head of a whole new world order because he made state visits to Bolivia and Venezuela.
Excessive fear really annoys me.
workaday joe wrote on October 2, 2007 9:43 AM:I like the phrase "sitting on a power keg". Gives a whole new 21st century frat-boy entitlement spin on a dangerous situation. I can hardly think of a better miscue to let us know where Fred is coming from.
Long Tooth wrote on October 2, 2007 10:46 AM:"Cuckoo..cuckoo..".
S Williamson wrote on October 2, 2007 11:06 AM:My cow died last week.
Jack Neefus wrote on October 2, 2007 2:19 PM:If Thompson thinks of himself as Reagan redux, it's worth remembering that history repeats itself -- the first time as tragedy, the second time as comedy.
e wrote on October 2, 2007 4:14 PM:He has made this type of bogus claim before. About a month ago he said something even more egregiously stupid and inaccurate. AND it would totally invalidate his later statements backtracking from this week's mistake. Unfortunately that gaffe went unreported, I'm trying to resurface it. I've got the scoop at
http://wecouldbefamous.blogspot.com
doug r wrote on October 2, 2007 10:22 PM:Well, they DID find tons of high explosive, but no one thought to secure it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHx-qhiPNbQ
I went to click on the link on Thompson's comments on WMDs and it linked to an empty CNN Ticker that said "sorry, you are looking for something that is not here."
Was that intentional or unintentional comedy on Eric Kleefeld's part?
