Saturday, September 08, 2007

Fred Thompson is Lying or Stupid

According to, presidential candidate Fred Thompson was asked to react to Osama bin Laden's first public communication in three years. More specifically, he was asked if the United States should have captured bin Laden and fully dismantled al-Qaeda prior to invading Iraq. This is what he said:

“It's not an either/or situation; sometimes you don't have a choice. Saddam Hussein was on the cusp as having defeated the United Nations and the free world and the United States. He had certainly had weapons of mass destruction and had the capability of reviving his nuclear program. In light of what Iran is doing today with their nuclear program, he certainly would have gotten back on the stick and gotten there again…"


Fred Thompson just said that "Saddam Hussein was on the cusp as having defeated the United Nations and the free world and the United States..."

I don't know what he's even trying to insinuate with this one but it certainly could be interpreted as a gaffe. How could a war hawk Republican interpret Saddam Hussein's 2002-2003 political and military power as anything remotely capable of bullying anybody, let alone "the United Nations, the free world, and the United States." As I recall, we found him in a hole in the ground covered in fleas. Remember this?

Anyways, Thompson's statement there was poorly worded and bizarre and I won't go into it further. The part of the quote that is more relevant and more indicative of this man's perspective as a presidential candidate was the following sentence:

"He had certainly had weapons of mass destruction and had the capability of reviving his nuclear program."

I'm sorry but that is total bullshit. It is totally misleading. It is an outright lie. It was a lie that this administration told again and again and again as justification for beginning the War in Iraq. We all remember Colin Powell at the United Nations don't we? He truly does regret that speech now.

And it has been proven to be a lie again and again and again by media outlets after they woke up and realized they were supposed to ask questions.

So what does this say about Presidential candidate Fred Thompson? Not even Bush administration officials fabricate WMD evidence about Iraq anymore, preferring to forget that they ever told the lies in the first place. So what is Thompson doing? Is he trying to be more misleading and ill-informed than the current president? Do you think he is satisfied with the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina as well? Does he think we're stupid?

Fred Thompson certainly is a serious contender to be the Republican nominee in 2008 and that means he has a good shot at being our next President. How does that sound?

Maybe to win the Republican nomination, you have to say a bunch of crazy shit that is plainly untrue because so many Republican primary voters continue to trust anything and everything that comes from the mouths of the administration, including that there were WMDs in Iraq.

I haven't read any outrage on the internet about this statement yet. It could be because it's Saturday. I hope that this one doesn't get lost in the shuffle.

Why does Fred Thompson even need to run? He's an actor on Law and Order so he's already famous.

Hey this is America and you can never be famous enough. You can always be famous-er.


ThirstyJon said...

Actually, we do know that Iraq had WMD's. We know. It is not a theory.

What we don't know is when they got rid of them.

What we know now is that the inspectors couldn't find them when they went in after the Coalition invasion. Of course we gave Saddam all the time in the world to get rid of them if he had wanted to.

For 12 years Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors that were there.

Comparison: If you bust a drug house, prove them guilty, but let them go free if they promise to get rid of the drugs, the burden of proof is now on them. They must prove that they have complied.

Saddam was obligated to prove that the WMDs were gone but he would not cooperate. It would have been a defeat for the world if we said he had to get rid of them and prove it and then didn't back it with action.



Mark said...

First off, you include no links in your post so no one knows the sources of your information. E always puts them in, why can't you?

Second, let's accept your position that the burden of proof was on Saddam to show he didn't have WMDs. Fine. How did he not show this? The UN could not find them. Hans Blix and his crew could not find them. No one has found them since entering Iraq. (See: No one has found them elsewhere in the world. Though I cannot find a citation for it, the Iraqi government submitted a several thousand page report to the US and UN detailing how they did not have WMDs in early 2003. The next day officials discarded these reports as fallacious, clearly without reading them. How is that not accepting the burden of proof? What else could they have done that would of proved to the US that they weren't there?

Third, what does 'defeat for the world' mean? Are you saying he would have blown everyone up? Do you have any proof, or is it just a remote fear? It's unspecific phrases like 'defeat for the world' that get us into conflicts for unjustifiable reasons. Please use your words judiciously.

ThirstyJon said...

Response to Mark:

1) I listed no link because I have never heard anyone question whether or not Saddam was cooperating. I have only heard news reports, then and now, that say he was not cooperating. Regardless of whether he had WMDs at the time, for whatever reason he was not cooperating. I have heard speculation (sorry, can't tell you the source, don't remember) that maybe he wanted his neighbors in the region to think he had WMDs for security reasons. Two sources you could check are the Wikipedia article on Hans Blix or

I am a new visitor to this blog and don't know who "E" is. Is that the administrator of this blog?

2) I am not sure how you could accept that the burden of proof was on Saddam and then ask "how did he [Saddam] not show this." The obligation was on Iraq. I refer again to the two articles in #1.

3)I used the phrase "defeat for the world" referring to the comments by Fred Thompson quoted by the blog author. No, I don't think Saddam was going to "blow everyone up." (sounds like the Martian from the old Bugs Bunny). I am not sure what is unclear here. If I say to someone "don't steal my car" and then do nothing while they do so, I have been defeated in my efforts to stop the theft. Doesn't sound unspecified to me.



ThirstyJon said...

Ok, I can see that "E" is the identity of the blogger who runs this blog.