During yesterday's interview with GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson, NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert repeated the myth that Thompson claimed Iraq had WMD immediately before the US invasion.
Here's what Russert said:
RUSSERT: You were in Iowa, and you’re talking about Saddam Hussein, and you said, it was, “He was certain former Iraqi leaders Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a point of contention in the four and a half 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’” “‘WMD. He clearly had,’the beginnings of a nuclear program,’ Thompson told the audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe.”
The Duelfer Commission, David Kay, all the weapons inspectors said they did not find any WMD. And yet you’re—you seem to be raising the whole herring again...
THOMPSON: No, no, I’m not...
RUSSERT: ...of chemical, biological and nuclear.
However, the story in question, which appeared in the Des Moines Register, actually quoted Thompson saying that Saddam "had had" WMD and the beginning of a nuclear program, not that he "had" them at the time of the invasion as Russert's reading of the article suggested. Here's the exact quote:
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson said Monday 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 1/2 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,” Thompson told an audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe.
Russert showed the exact quote from the article on screen while asking the question, but changed "had had" to "had" in reading it for his audience (click the netcast link here and go to 13:40). Thompson, of course, denied the allegation.
As I previously showed, this myth was first promoted nationally by Josh Marshall and Eric Kleefeld of Talking Points Memo, both of whom rephrased Thompson's quote into the claim that Saddam "had" WMD. Marshall, for instance, wrote the following:
Thompson on Saddam Hussein: Good we got him when we did since he had WMD, had an active nuclear program and was about to become "new dictator of that entire region."
Marshall's post linked to a Kleefeld post that does not support this claim. Instead, it rephrased Thompson's statement that Iraq "had had" WMD and a nuclear program in the past to suggest that Thompson claimed Iraq "had" WMD and a nuclear program at the time of the invasion:
Thompson: Saddam "Clearly" Had WMD And A Nuke Program
By Eric Kleefeld - October 1, 2007, 9:30PMDuring 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."
During the interview, Russert also shamelessly attempted to demagogue Thompson, taking his statements out of context to imply that the candidate had trivialized the death of US soldiers and 9/11 victims:
MR. RUSSERT: You made a comment the other day in South Carolina, said, “Fred Thompson said the Iraqi insurgency is made up of ‘a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices,’ and suggested that the appearance of losing to such an enemy would harm U.S. national security.” As you know, we’ve lost 3,834 kids; 28,385 wounded or injured, 65 percent of them by these improvised devices...RUSSERT: It’s more than just a bunch of kids...
RUSSERT: You shouldn’t trivialized as a bunch of kids...
RUSSERT: Let me turn to Osama bin Laden. In Iowa you told reporters, “Bin Laden is ‘more symbolism than anything else.’” To the people who died on September 11th, Osama bin Laden is more than symbolism.
Even by Russert's "gotcha" standards, these questions are cheap debating tactics, not journalism. They have no substantive content.
Update 11/7 1:53 PM: Per commenter Crust's reasonable request for the context that Russert omitted, here is the CNN.com report on Thompson said in the "bunch of kids" quote:
At a campaign stop in South Carolina Wednesday, Fred Thompson said that the Iraqi insurgency is made up of "a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices," and suggested that the appearance of losing to such an enemy would harm U.S. national security.
Thompson was confronted about Iraq by a Bluffton resident named Bernhard Steinhouse, who asked Thompson whether he would bring back U.S. forces from the country.
"We will not be a safer country, we will not be a safer America if the whole world watches us being defeated by a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices," Thompson said.
Roadside bombs are one of the leading causes of U.S. casualties in Iraq.
Of course, the insurgency is made up primarily of young men. There's nothing inaccurate about what Thompson said, nor does it necessarily trivialize US casualties, which was surely not his intent. Moreover, the GOP candidate was making a serious point about the potential effect of US withdrawal, which Russert ignored.
And here is the AP report on the bin Laden quote:
Republican Fred Thompson said Friday that terrorist mastermind Usama bin Laden is "more symbolism than anything else" as the presidential hopeful warned of possible greater Al Qaeda threats within the United States.
As a new video surfaced from bin Laden days before the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Thompson focused on the broader war on terrorism and the Iraq conflict. He argued that not only are the United States and Iraqi forces making progress in Iraq, but that public support for the war is increasing.
The new video of bin Laden is his first in three years. Thompson played down its release in talking to reporters on his second day of campaigning in Iowa.
"Bin Laden being in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan is not as important as there are probably Al Qaeda operatives inside the United States of America," Thompson said.
Bin Laden is considered the man behind the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The former Tennessee senator and actor argued that "bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else. I think it demonstrates to people once again that we're in a global war."
Thompson said the Al Qaeda leader and the Iraq war must be seen as part of the larger war on terrorism.
"It's one that bin Laden and people like him are heading up and we need to catch him and we surely need to deal with him, but if he disappeared tomorrow we still have this problem. If Iraq disappeared tomorrow, we'd still have this problem," Thompson said.
The last paragraph is the key -- Thompson is saying that killing bin Laden would be symbolically important, but would not end the terrorist threat. Once again, there's no indication that he meant to dishonor victims of 9/11.
I'm no fan of Tim Russert, and Fred Thompson is my pick in the race, but honestly, have you spent a lot of time watching Meet The Press? Tim Russert is the worst quote reader on television. He regularly butchers the quotes, skipping entire phrases at times. I don't think it's intentional either, I think the guy just has a problem with reading out loud. That's what I'd likely attribute this to, not some gotcha agenda against Fred Thompson but rather Tim Russert's apparent and frequent incompetence at reading quotes.
It's to the point where I'm almost happy when he's out and they have Andrea Mitchell on there instead. At least she doesn't screw up when she reads out loud.
Posted by: jimmy-buffett | November 06, 2007 at 07:38 AM
The Duelfer Commission, David Kay, all the weapons inspectors said they did not find any WMD.
And yet they all managed to miss some 500 degraded chemical WMDs, Sarin and Mustard Gas. Wonder what else they missed...
Posted by: Fen | November 06, 2007 at 07:49 AM
Since we know that Libya had a nuke program and got it from Iraq, how can any honest person deny that Iraq had a nuke program?
Oh wait! We're talking about Russert here. Never mind. No expectations of honesty from Perjuring Tim.
Posted by: stan | November 06, 2007 at 08:43 AM
I saw that, and wondered why Thompson didn't catch it.
Maybe he didn't want to say something like, "no, I said had had, not had."
Russert clearly butchered the quote.
Posted by: Jim Durbin | November 06, 2007 at 09:03 AM
I think it's time to retire the MSM acronymn(Main Stream Media) and replace it with MBM, Make Believe Media. With increasing frequency we see national talking (or writing) heads play Let's Pretend with the facts to make sure their final product supports their agenda.
Posted by: Boise BB | November 06, 2007 at 11:10 AM
The point here is that Thompson was using a bit of spin back in Iowa.
The question is, was there adequate cause (or an accurate assessment of the Iraqi threat) to justify an invasion ?
Thompson is arguing that there was, but he does so by lowering the bar on the justification.
The argument that Powell made before the UN and that the Administration presented was different. They argued that Saddam HAD an active WMD program and WAS an immediate and present threat.
Thompson says that that argument was accurate but then he changes the terms by saying that because Saddam once "had had" WMD that that was, in essence, the same as actually "having" WMD.
Posted by: Howard | November 06, 2007 at 01:47 PM
Mr. Nyhan, when you want to argue that someone took statements out of context, it's good practice to provide said context.
Prima facie, Thompson's comments that the Iraqi insurgency is nuthin' but "a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices" and that Bin Laden is "more symbolism than anything else" are troubling. As Russert says, they appear to show a profound disrespect for our soldiers fighting in Iraq and the victims of 9/11. Now maybe there is somehow an exonerating context to Thompson's remarks. If so, show it. As it stands, you are merely arguing by repeated assertion which is "shameless", "demagogue[ry]", a "cheap debating tactic[]", "not journalism" and of "no substantive content".
Posted by: Crust | November 06, 2007 at 01:50 PM
Back to the Thompson and the WMD question -
It's like asking if Saddam was a credible threat and Thompson replies, "Yes, we know he was evil and capable of evil acts".
Then he's later asked to explain how Saddam was a 'credible threat' and Thompson replies, "What I said was that he was evil..."
And, clearly, anyone (Thompson included) can find lots of evidence to show that Saddam was evil. No debate there.
Then Thompson can speculate about how much Saddam would want to be a threat and how bad that would be, etc.
That's what he's done here - he's provided an answer but justifies it by answering a different question.
I'd sat that Russert could have left the matter alone as Thompson made himself more clear when the question came up at the debate, but he was still using the same speculative proof (saying that Saddam would have had WMD by now if we hadn't invaded and by saying, in essence, that wanting a WMD program was as bad as having one).
Posted by: Howard | November 06, 2007 at 02:10 PM
The calcified conventional wisdom is wrong on this, per usual. Saddam never had some sort of ephiphany to completely divest himself of WMD program at any time. We don't have an accurate accounting of what he did with his weapons in the 1998-2002 period- only estimations of what we think happened. He could have shuttled his WMD in and out of his country after 9-11 at will- we just don't know, because we lacked solid human intelligence. Why folks in the media continue insist that he didn't have WMD is monumentally misleading, and also fundamentally ignorant of how evil nation-states have always operated.
Posted by: | November 06, 2007 at 05:03 PM
If the above quotes are accurate, then there is a striking irony to the exchange regarding the 'bunch of kids' quote.
Russert berated Thompson for saying "... the Iraqi insurgency is made up of ‘a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices..."
Then he proceeds to say "As you know, we’ve lost 3,834 kids; ..."
So he objected to referring to the "insurgents" as kids, but then he refers to the US soldiers as 'kids' while citing the # of deceased soldiers.
He scolds Thompson with the line:
RUSSERT: It’s more than just a bunch of kids... [referring to the insurgency].
Well, if the insurgency is more than a bunch of kids, then presumably our soldiers should be characterized as more than 'kids' as well, Mr. Russert.
Posted by: Kevin | November 06, 2007 at 05:03 PM
The argument that Powell made before the UN and that the Administration presented was different. They argued that Saddam HAD an active WMD program
Saddam did. Maybe he followed Russian SOP [Operation Sarandar] and ditched whatever compnonets he could, then sent the start-up reasearch into Syria. Regardles, we know that he had a practice of evading weapon's inspectors by farming his WMD research out to Sudan and Libya.
and WAS an immediate and present threat.
No, I distinctly remember POTUS declaring that we could not afford to wait until Saddam was an imminent threat. Huge diff.
Posted by: Fen | November 06, 2007 at 05:23 PM
Thank you for the detailed reply. But, frankly, it's underwhelming.
The full context of the first quote only makes it clearer:
"We will not be a safer country, we will not be a safer America if the whole world watches us being defeated by a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices."
How can you read that and not see that Thompson is minimizing the insurgency (and therefore implicitly minimizing the work of our troops)? Sorry, but Russert did not cherry-pick this quote, if anything the opposite.
The second quote is admittedly a closer and more complex call. He did truncate context, but I would say Russert is tolerably within the bounds of acceptable discourse here. However you want to slice it, for Thompson to say "bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else" was just dumb. It certainly isn't very respectful to the family of victims who may feel a righteous need for vengeance. Or people who are concerned about deterring future acts of terrorism.
Posted by: Crust | November 06, 2007 at 09:54 PM
Fen -
You can also believe that he had an active WMD program but hid it prior to (and after) the invasion.
That is not, however, what both the Iraq Study Group and the Senate Committee on Intelligence concluded. They concluded the opposite - that WMD and nuclear programs were nonexistent in 2002.
(They also wrote that all nuclear programs had ended in 1991 after which time Iraq's ability to resume one had "progressively declined". Secondly, more in response to Stan, Lybia developed their nuclear program with help from the Soviets, not Iraq).
They also concluded that the intelligence used in 2002 was poor quality, speculative and was cherry picked (for example, assessments that WMDs were limited or didn't exist were ignored or downplayed).
Posted by: Howard | November 07, 2007 at 12:22 AM