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, 9:30PM

During 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.