Here we go again! Thompson: Iraq had WMDs before U.S. invaded

[Quixote1818]

They just won't give it a fucking rest! :banghead:

Then again, Thompson is so lost and behind on the facts on every subject, he likely is just another ignorant ass hole on this as most are.



Thompson: Iraq had WMDs before U.S. invaded
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

October 1, 2007



Newton, Ia. — Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson said today he was certain former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a point of contention in the 4.5 years since the war began.

"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 clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program," the former Tennessee senator told an audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe.

The question of whether Saddam had banned chemical and biological weapons, and plans to acquire nuclear weapons, has been the subject of intense debate in light of inspectors' failure to find such evidence since the war began.

Thompson made the statement while explaining why he felt the war was justified, despite the Bush administration's chief justification for the invasion turning out not to be verifiable.

"In my estimation, his intent never did change," Thompson said. "And by today, he clearly would have had that (weapons program) rejuvenated."

More: http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071001/NEWS/71001030/1001/hawkeye_insider

[Harper_is_Bush]

1. oh wow! This is not a smart man.

Who is he trying to appeal to with that line? The "base"?

he had wmd's <> he "had had" the beginnings of a nuclear program, sorry FT.

A couple of insignificant items burried in a flower garden for years does not equal (<>) WMD's.

Let the media explain it. Hold yer breath now...

[acmavm]

2. He better hire the Law and Order script writers. He's sounding pretty

crazy not to mention brainless.

Only the republicans could scrape up an old fool like this.

[zbdent]

3. Remember all those Repukes who were saying

"Just wait and see ... you stinking liberals want Saddam Hussein to hit our troops with these WMDs! Then we'll line you up against the wall and shoot your sorry asses!"

[Warren Stupidity]

4. "a point of contention" "not verifiable" " the subject of intense debate "

I can't tell who is more full of rancid shit here, Herman Munster or THOMAS BEAUMONT.

Then again nearly five years after it was obvious that the criminal cabal in the white house openly lied about the imminent threat from non-existent weapons of mass destruction, nothing at all has been done to bring the criminals to account, in fact the Washington Consensus continues to pretend that nothing a bit more than slightly treasonous occurred.

[mtnester]

5. Apparently he is fishing for

some cash from the loonies who called him basically a non-entity today.

Fred who?

[stevedeshazer]

6. I love how the righties built up this giant buzz about Fred Thompson,

and now he's just an empty suit to them and they're threatening to go third party with James Dobson.

It's gotten so bad for the fundies that Grandpa McCain has gone full-immersion Baptist and Richard Viguerie has declared the Republican Party dead if Giuliani is nominated.

They're already telegraphing to the media that they know a Democratic landslide is coming next year. They're already in rebuilding mode thirteen months before the election.

Please join me in piling on. It's about fucking time. :)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. In a few days, he'll start parroting Santorum

and say that they were buried in Syria

:banghead:

[Mike Nelson]

8. Thompson knows this mantra will...

...endear him to Conservative primary voters. That's what they BELIEVE.

[Middle finga]

9. A dumb ass trying to appeal to other dumb asses

[Johonny]

10. what's his point?

Even though we never found any he did have them. Does this mean Saddam is a master of hiding and they're still there some where so we shouldn't have let him die with this knowledge? Does this mean they were there but now terrorist have them and so the Iraq war did the exact opposite of what it was suppose to do? Does this mean they are still there and our troops are amazingly bad at finding them? I mean for his statement to be true means someone really messed up! Or they are there the same way the monster is in Thompson's closet every night.

[bluestateguy]

11. They did. We gave him the poison gas that he used on the Kurds in 1988.

And the weapons inspectors certified that they were all destroyed in 1995.

[Igel]

13. Perhaps all the poison gas--although in

'03 Blix was agnostic on the question and never said that all the VX gas was accounted for.

Bu in '03 he also went on record with this: " I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991."


So it wasn't certified as destroyed in '95. Blix is properly agnostic about it's existence in '03: "It might still exist." Since '03 it's become fairly sure that either Iraq misrepresented things and this volume of anthrax was never produced or it was disposed of.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html

[mikelewis]

12. There is a theoretical possibility that Iraq did have WMD...

...Also, it is quite possible that there is a place in the universe where 1 and 1 does not equal 2; it's just really, really, really unlikely we'll ever find that place.