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.

FACT:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate