Fred Thompson in Meet the Press: Meet the Candidates 2008 series, with Tim Russert

On Abortion: Heart swayed by sonogram of his unborn child

On Abortion: No human Life Amendment; let states decide individually

A: No.

Q: You would not?

A: No. That’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days.

Q: Each state would make their own abortion laws.

A: Yeah. But to have an amendment going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go

On Abortion: Life begins at conception, but allow early abortions

A: No. I didn’t know then.

Q: You know now?

A: My public position has always been the same. I’ve been 100% pro-life in every vote that I’ve ever cast.

Q: Do you believe that life begins at conception, so abortion is the taking of a human life?

A: Yes, I do.

A: But you would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?

A: I do not think that you can have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I’ve got to recognize that fact.

On Abortion: Opposes partial birth ban; but no parental notification

A: No, no. It’s a complex issue concerning whether or not you’re going to have a federal law, a federal constitutional amendment, those kinds of things. Nobody’s proposed a federal law on this. I had an opportunity to vote on an array of things over eight years, whether it be partial birth abortion, whether it be Mexico City policy, whether it be transporting young girls across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and all that--100% pro-life. I would take those same positions as president: No federal funding for abortion, no nothing that would in any way encourage abortion. I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that’s what you’re talking about. You’re talking about potential criminal law.

On Civil Rights: Dislikes gay marriage, but states allowed to do it

A: Yes. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Nobody ever thought that that was contested until recently, and we’ve had a couple judges in a couple states decide to turn all that on its head. I would support a constitutional amendment that addresses this judge-created problem, and say judges can’t do that. But, at the end of the day, if a state legislature and a governor decide that that’s what they want to do, yes, they should have the freedom to do what Fred Thompson thinks is a very bad idea.

On Foreign Policy: Play hardball with Musharraf, but don’t cut off US aid

A: I’d be saying learn as much as you can about the situation to all my people. We’ve got two competing serious considerations there. One is the rule of law, which we’ve got to stand for, which he’s going against right now. And the other is the fact that it’s one of the most potentially dangerous situations in the world for us right now. He is an ally. There’re not many of them in that part of the world. Even parts of his own government do not have our interests at heart. There are radical Muslim elements there.

Q: We have provided Musharraf $10 billion in American aid since 2001. Should we suspend that aid?

A: Not now. I know that it’s been mentioned by our people. He’s been told that that’s at risk if he did what he, in fact, did. Everything’s going to be on the table. I think we’ve got to play hardball with him.

On Gun Control: Allow colleges to make their own rules about guns on campus

A: It would have to be consistent with campus rules. I don’t think that all students need to be carrying weapons on the school campus. What I would feel more comfortable with, would be to give some thought as to who should be properly qualified and permitted & armed on campuses and other places where people gather.

Q: But you would allow a campus to bar their students from carrying concealed weapons?

A: Yeah, different schools would have the freedom to have their own rules as they see fit.

On Homeland Security: Waterboarding ok if national security were at stake

Q: Now there, I was quoted exactly right.

Q: You would use torture if you thought it would get the information?

A: I never used the word torture. The measures must meet the circumstances. And I’m not sure what it would take. We’re having a big public debate now on a technique which I know very little about. It sounds very gruesome to me. But the president has an obligation to do what I just said, and I can’t imagine anybody being president who wouldn’t make that decision.

Q: So you would use techniques that you felt necessary?

A: Yes.

Q: And pay the consequences for using those if, in fact, they turned out to be torture?

A: I would answer to whatever decision that I made. And I would do what was necessary to protect those who carried out my orders.

On Homeland Security: Supports pre-emption policy to prevent nuclear proliferation

Q: If it’s clear that Iran is getting close to getting a nuclear weapon, would it be your policy to support pre-emption as a means of taking out or wiping out those facilities?

A: Yes, yes.

Q: It would be?

A: Yes.

A: Sounds a little eager there, doesn’t it?

Q: Well, my question: Do you believe the US should, in fact, be prepared to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran to eliminate their nuclear capability?

A: Yes, we should be prepared to do that. I think in many respects it would be a sign of the failure of other policies. I don’t think that that’s something that we should have to do. We’re not doing enough, I don’t believe, to help [the people in Iran who are dissatisfied with the government], to communicate with them, to give them the means of communication to rhetorically say the things that I think we need to say, to give them moral support.

On Principles & Values: 100% free & clear of cancer; will release all health records

A: No, it’s not health-related. I was encouraged by my wife and other people in the health field to watch my cholesterol, to watch my weight, to exercise more.

Q: But you have been diagnosed with lymphoma.

A: Yes.

Q: And you said the other day you were going to have some tests. Did you?

A: Yes. I had tests in September.

Q: And the results?

A: 100% free and clear. Some people in the news media asked for that. I sent it to them. I didn’t make a public announcement, but I had all the tests. The doctor put out a statement I’m in good shape. It’s totally legitimate. The American people have a right to know.

Q: Will you release all your health records?

A: I will release whatever the common practice is. There’s 30-something different kinds of lymphoma, and I’ve supposedly got one of the better kinds. I fully expect to live long enough to pass away from something else.

On War & Peace: Stay the course and take opportunity to succeed

A: Yeah. I think so. It seems to me like, at the end of last year, we were losing the war. It seems to me now, in the last five months, that there’ve been a lot of good things happen there.

Q: But staying the course, the status quo, can that be our strategy?

A: Well, it’s not a stay-the-course strategy, in terms of what’s been going on there. It’s giving us an opportunity to succeed. You know, we’ve got take yes for an answer. We got to take success as a reality when we find it.

Q: Should we plan on being there several years?

A: Well, I don’t know what several years means. I mean, we just don’t know. I would hope that it would not be indefinite.

Q: But you oppose withdrawing any troops right now.

A: Well, I think we ought to stay on the course that we’re on. We’ve got people on the ground who apparently now know what they’re doing.

On War & Peace: Osama bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else

A: I’ve never been accused of being soft on Osama bin Laden. What I think sometimes happens in this country is that we fixate on a personality. And even someone as evil as this man, we need to understand, if he’s killed, someone will take his place. It’s almost like the focus is so much on him that we think our problem will pretty much go away if we get him. Getting him is important. It’s important because he’s the head of this operation right now. It’s important because of symbolism and lots of other reasons. No question about that. But the notion that our problems are pretty much going to be solved when he goes away-- we can’t be fixated-- it minimizes the nature of the problem.

On War & Peace: Pledges to do everything possible to prevent Iranian nukes

A: That would be my intent. I would make a pledge to do everything that I could to keep it from happening.

Q: How far are they away from having one?

A: Nobody knows. It’s not an easy job. But they’re not easy to find, either, in a place like Iran.

Q: You said an attack may backfire. What, in fact, would be the fallout from a US attack on Iran?

A: Well, sometimes you’re faced with two very bad decisions, and those are two very bad decisions. What would happen if they sent a missile with a nuclear warhead and hit Israel? What would happen if they did the same to our people in the field with some kind of attacks by a nuclear weapon? What would happen if they held that whole region hostage in terms of oil?

Q: So where do you come down?

A: You can’t answer that in advance. I mean, we’re talking about a little ways down the road.