«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Fred Thompson Thinks Saddam had WMD, Would be Regional Dictator if Not Deposed

Maybe Fred Thompson thinks he needs to get his crazy on in order to garner attention in the GOP primary race. That's the only explanation for the comments he just made in Iowa about Saddam Hussein:

"Saddam Hussein, today, had we not gone in, would be sitting on this power keg and be in control of the whole thing," Thompson predicted. "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."

This is nonsense and shows a stunning lack of understanding of the power relationships that ruled the Middle East from the first Gulf War until 2003. Saddam Hussein (1) was balanced by Iran, (2) had a pretty pathetic armed forces throughout the '90s and '00s, and (3) never signaled an interest in increased territorial hegemony after the first Gulf War.

Also, this is just ridiculous:

"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," Thompson said. "He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program, and in my estimation his intent never did change."

Saddam didn't have WMD in any serious sense. He may have had low-grade chemical and biological weapons programs, much of which were just left over from before the first Gulf War, but if we were to invade every country in the world that had that sort of weapons program, we'd be fighting across the globe. Here's what the Iraq Survey Group, a 1,400-member international team organized by the Pentagon and the CIA to find WMDs, had to say about Saddam's weapons programs in 2004: "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."

Read a freakin' newspaper, Fred. Or a book. Or the internet. Or anything.

Comments

If Saddam had WMDs. Bush's dad had the receipts, because he sold them to him. We need to make sure that the American people never forget that it was Republicans who supported Hussein from the time he was involved in the overthrow of the Iraqi government in 1958, to 1963 when the Baath Party took power, through the 1980s when Reagan and Bush Sr. sold Hussein cluster bombs, as well as the Bell helicopters with crop dusting equipment and the precursor chemicals that Saddam used to gas the Kurds in 1988. We continued to support and arm him up until the first Gulf War in 1991 (remember April Glaspie?).

Don't let these filthy, right-wing American fascists get away with their historical revisionism!!!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on 10/02/07 at 10:09 AM Respond

Actually, this is not the first time that Thompson has lied about the existence of WMDs at the time of invasion. Another gaffe occurred almost a month ago and is an even more egregiously inaccurate statement that would, if it resurfaces, totally refute his attempts to backtrack from this week's quote.
The whole story is at
http://wecouldbefamous.blogspot.com

Posted by: E on 10/02/07 at 1:14 PM Respond

This guy is a total joke. He should stick with acting.

Posted by: Guy Incognito on 10/02/07 at 3:26 PM Respond

Fred would be well advised not to read lefty publications like Mother Jones, who think we'd be living in a more secure world today if only Saddam and his sons remained in power. Saddam did have WMD, whether u want to accept that fact or not. He did not unilaterally give them up or have some sort of personal epiphany in regards to WMD. To this date, there are still unaccounted WMD that we have no idea where they were transited to. We have no accounting of the time period from 2001- to pre-invasion Iraq as to what was going on with regards to the development or transiting of their WMD materials.

The only historical revisionism going on here are the angelic motives you impute on Saddam Hussein's regime. If you honestly think Saddam had no weapons programs and did not move these programs around, ive got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Posted by: Lucha Libre on 10/02/07 at 4:22 PM Respond

Fred is Bush version 2.0, the only bug fixes are an ability to speak well, the rest is still the same lunacy we've all come to despise.

Posted by: Jeffrey Hamilton on 10/02/07 at 7:19 PM Respond

So lefties.
Where do you think the gases went that he used on the Kurds. Duhhh. I guss these arn't considered WMDs by the liberals any more.
THere are sat. pics of the convoys crossing into Syria.
HEY HILLARY! WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO VINCE FOSTER?

Posted by: Gus Burk on 10/02/07 at 8:13 PM Respond

Want to clarify something about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, which is used as evidence of Saddam's chemical weapons programs fairly frequently.

That horrifying attack occurred in 1988, before Gulf War I. As the quote from the ISG that I cite in the post says, "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."

Again, the source of that conclusion was a team of 1,400 people, tasked by the Bush Administration to find WMDs in Iraq. They found none.

More info on the gas attack here:

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

Posted by: Jonathan Stein on 10/03/07 at 5:34 AM Respond

"WMD" has, generally speaking, a very vague reference, almost as vague as "Al Queda". For instance,artillary shells made of depleted urianium, cluster bombs and defoliants certainly have the aspect of WMD. Further, the technology of atom bombs and the like is pretty well disseminated in the world and plenty of Iraqis were, having recieved advanced degrees in the U.S., in a position to understand and develop those bombs. Apparently efforts were made to do that though the program was abandoned under the regime of sanctions imposed by the International community.

So Fred Thompson's comments are not all that far off the mark and the fact that he sounds a little dumb and out of it may not, in the end, prove to be all that big a disadvantage. He contrasts favorably with the cocksure, fast talking, heavy ideologues against who he is running. His seeming indifference to the niceties of the contemporary political arguments over how we got into and how to get out of Iraq may actually offer many Americans something upon which to base a hope that all thee tendentious issues will someday be put to rest.Most Americans don't like arguments too full of "point& straight device"( as Sir Walter Relaigh's dress was once descibed). Actually, his "lackluster" campaign and minimum fund-raising is an historically approve way to obtain the White House. Often, the less controversial the candidate, the better his chances.The less passionate the candidate, the more he seems to be "one of the people". Of all the announced Republican candidates the "good ole boy" Fred Thompson would probably give Hillary the most difficulty one on one.

Posted by: John Shaplin on 10/03/07 at 6:13 AM Respond