Is Fred Thompson lying, or just ignorant?

Question

Fred Thompson, on Leno, asserted that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, which NOBODY, not even President Bush, now believes. Check link for full transcript, but here is the crux:

I think we got to remember what it would be like if we had not done what we did [invaded Iraq] (...) It [Iraq] would have been in a position to continue its nuclear weapons program.

Since Iraq did NOT have a nuclear weapons program, is Fred just ignorant of this fact, or is he lying to get the support of the 'base' who also still believe in Sadaam's phantom nuclear program?

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODhkNWRjMWU2YWMzNWFkMDlkYWNkYmFlMzBkM2RlZDQ=

I think I see where Fred is going to get his support, looking at the answers from Repub.s here. The same 33% who STILL believe in the Iraq/9-11 connection. The same 33% who still approve of our current president.

Very detailed post, Eric. Though I am not a conservative, I am in agreement with you and not Thompson on many of the items you list. And for a conservative that actually pays attention, Fred isn't what he pretends to be.

Answer 1

Fred Thompson is not a real conservative.
Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes:

Americans For Better Immigration rated his voting record with a "C" grade.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter all have much more conservative voting records on immigration.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop2.html
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop3.html

As a confirmed member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Thompson would support the North American Union.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kXevDajb2lo
The CFR wants to allow Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities.
The CFR calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.
The CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.


As a proponent of free trade Thompson would support the the NAFTA Superhighway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Free_Trade
"Indeed, the image of the highway, with its Chinese goods whizzing across the border borne by Mexican truckers on a privatized, foreign-operated road, is almost mundane in its plausibility.
"Construction of the NAFTA highway from Laredo, Texas to Canada is now underway," read a letter in the February 13 San Gabriel Valley Tribune. "Spain will own most of the toll roads that connect to the superhighway. Mexico will own and operate the Kansas City Smart Port. And NAFTA tribunal, not the U.S. Supreme Court, will have the final word in trade disputes."

He also voted:

♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998.

♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001.

♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997.

♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999.

♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999.

♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001.

♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997.

♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996.

♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997.

♦ FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995.

♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996.

♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000.

♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002.

♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000.

♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999.

There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

Ronald Reagan he is NOT!
http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1827&CMSCategoryID=19

I will be voting for Ron Paul.

Answer 2

Ima's video link is not bad... people should know that many of the democrats were on board with the Bush administration prior to the last couple of years.

However, it is now common knowledge that the Bush administration was wrong and working with bad intelligence (or at least they have been unable to prove otherwise.)
So Thompson (who has been an actor longer than he's been a Senator) should really feel embarrassed about using a terrorism fear campaign to support this largely unpopular war with greater troop surges and no exit in sight.

Answer 3

A little lying mixed with a little ignorance.I can't look into his soul so how much of one or the other is hard to say
Fact is this is precisely as I predicted.Thompson is the candidate for those conservatives who still want to believe the lies even after Bush himself has denied them.That he's an actor is an asset.He's used to playing fiction and that's what needed if you want to sell the Bush presidency as a success and that's what these people want.
They want to keep believing the lies.They want to continue to live in their fantasy world where Iraq had WMD,was involved with 9/11 and Bush is a hero

Answer 4

I think that the 130 killed on the Forestal is a lie-thought it was more Had tobelieve the lies about the capture / torture part-Who would ever believe that Had his own room as a prisoner--I don't think so The gooks beat and stabbed him-red cross wouldn't allow that Who would believe you can take water from one side of a bucket-maybe Kreskin So much crap!

Answer 5

No, he's not lying. If he's "ignorant" or "lying" then every single Democrat right down to Bill Clinton is as well.

Here are some quotes from the other side about Iraq. Enjoy the hypocrisy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

Answer 6

Great link Ima. Shows the ignorance of the dems.

Answer 7

He's neither.

Answer 8

Nope, I believe he is probably right.............