Russia Knew...

[ethics]

In news that will probably not even be noticed, something huge is supporting Bush's claim on ties of Iraq, Saddam, and terrorism. That huge entity is Russia.

(from LGF)

Russian President Vladimir Putin says Russian intelligence warned the United States that Saddam Hussein was planning terror attacks in the US—after September 11: Putin Says Russia Warned U.S. on Saddam (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040618/wl_nm/russia_us_iraq_dc).
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in comments sure to help President Bush, declared Friday that Russia knew Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had planned terror attacks on U.S. soil and had warned Washington.

Putin said Russian intelligence had been told on several occasions that Saddam’s special forces were preparing to attack U.S. targets inside and outside the United States.

“After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing ‘terrorist acts’ on the United States and beyond its borders,” he told reporters.

“This information was passed on to our American colleagues,” he said. He added, however, that Russian intelligence had no proof that Saddam’s agents had been involved in any particular attack.

[Plunge]

It's the headline on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html). I think it is making some people take notice, thank goodness, and will hopefully make some people realize what a danger Saddam was.

[Frodo Lives]

This could turn out to be very interesting. I hope this can be verified and isn't just smoke and mirrors. If it does, it could put more validity to the invasion of Iraq. Not that I needed it, because I still fully support the war. I still feel we did a good thing (I am not saying that war is good Unless it is Star Wars) but getting ride of Saddam and giving the Iraqis a chance to start over. I still have hope and faith.

Is there any other news groups running this story?

[Coot]

I was just going to post this in the UNSCAM thread ;) My take on this, is that Putin does nothing by accident. It's no secret he was none too pleased with the invasion and the tipping of his cash cow. This is a little quid pro quo from Putin to Bush for soft pedalling the UNSCAM fraud.

[cdw]

I read this on reuters.

Of course they knew. We knew. Everyone knew.
I am amazed at the incorrect coverage the 9/11 reports are getting and was laughing hysterically when the commission head when questioned about the report said we do not come to any different conclusion than the administration did.
Amazing bs the media puts out there. Anything for a buck.

[ethics]

I stand corrected then, kudos to CNN.

[ethics]

Could be, of course, Coot.

[Allene]

I was just going to post this in the UNSCAM thread ;) My take on this, is that Putin does nothing by accident. It's no secret he was none too pleased with the invasion and the tipping of his cash cow. This is a little quid pro quo from Putin to Bush for soft pedalling the UNSCAM fraud.

I saw the CNN headline before I came here and wondered what was going on.

[Coot]

We'll never really know for certain, but one has to wonder about Putin's motives for granting such a large boon to Bush on an issue that he was clearly at odds with him over. Realpolitik sometimes has just the right mix of intrigue and nuance.

[ethics]

Which is why I would not discount your theory at face value. As a matter of fact, this is so unlike the Russians and Putin specifically, that you might have to look for ulterior motives.

If it IS true... then Bush screwd up by trying to sweep UNSCAM under the rug, and he deserves our questioning him.

[ShinyTop]

Even as I was stating my displeasure with the WMD issue I was saying that I fully believed that once sanctions were lifted Saddam would have used his billions in oil revenue to support attacks against our country. But my suspicians and Putin's facts are two different things. I am also glad to see the danger verified.

[tke711]

I read this on reuters.

Of course they knew. We knew. Everyone knew.
I am amazed at the incorrect coverage the 9/11 reports are getting and was laughing hysterically when the commission head when questioned about the report said we do not come to any different conclusion than the administration did.
Amazing bs the media puts out there. Anything for a buck.
Agreed!!!!

It wasn't just U.S. intelligence that believed Saddam had links to terrorism or that he had WMD's. Almost every nation's intelligence services believed that to be fact.

But of course, it's only our President that gets raked over the coals for no WMD's being found. :rolleyes:

[cdw]

Wait...back up. Our President AND Tony Blair.

Just sent Blair an email today thanking him for his insight, loyalty and GREAT speeches!

:)

[ShinyTop]

Agreed!!!!

It wasn't just U.S. intelligence that believed Saddam had links to terrorism or that he had WMD's. Almost every nation's intelligence services believed that to be fact.

But of course, it's only our President that gets raked over the coals for no WMD's being found. :rolleyes:


TK, there is a big difference between being wrong and taking your country to war over UNVERIFIED information. And if I am not mistaken our intelligence agencies were not in agreement that he had the WMD's, we were mostly using false intelligence provided by Iraqi's with an agenda.

And the bottom line is giving a sound bite that you think he has WMD's and taking action based on it are very, very different animals.

The president had the means and the responsiblity to be sure about the WMD's. He could have used SF, Delta Forces, more satelites or even heliborne raid. Drastic, yes. As drastic an a full blown invasion, not hardly. Please remember I would have supported the invasion for several other reasons. I am not against what we did. I am adamantly opposed to the risk of war over lies or unverified data. One is a character flaw inexcusable in a president and the other is a performance flaw inexcusable in a president.

[tke711]

ST, you and I just disagree on how important the WMD aspect was for why we went to war. For me, it was just one of many reasons that our President gave for going to war. You have chosen to focus on the WMD reason and give it the most importance. I have not. Neither one is right or wrong, just a difference.

Also, for me, just because WMD's haven't been found yet, doesn't mean they didn't exist. Hell, even Saddam himself admitted he had them and then wouldn't provide proof that he destroyed them. The weapons could have been moved prior to our attack and/or they could still be buried in the desert somewhere. We just don't know.

[Techie2000]

Any chance the information could be verified by a third party? I do not think it unreasonable that I be slightly skeptical of information sent to us by another country's intelligence agency...

[Sierra Mike]

An independent third party verifying Russian intel...?

Excuse me for a moment.

rofl

SM

[Fiona]

some read the same news article this morning.. and this is the only thing they saw...

"However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks."

:rolleyes:

[LissaKay]

Why did this not come out before now?

And how does this mesh with the Russians' objections to our incursion into Iraq?

Just wondering ...

[Neo]

The president had the means and the responsiblity to be sure about the WMD's. He could have used SF, Delta Forces, more satelites or even heliborne raid. Drastic, yes. As drastic an a full blown invasion, not hardly.

OK we will for the sake of argument set aside the fact that everybody said he had them before the invasion. Pretend that doesn't figure at all. We will assume that it at best case suggested he had them.

So, lets move on to your opinion of we should have done more to verify. You have said we could have used SF, Delta Forces, more satellites or even heliborne raid. You of course know it isn't as if we would get permission or assistance from Saddam and his troops.

How about some strategic and tactical specifics and even tie it to the means or units above as well as any others you wish to add to the mix.

Along with the above explain to me:

1. How you would used them.

2. How you would found the exact location and verified the WMDs?

3. What would have been verifiable evidence?

4. How would you have obtained that evidence?

(For instance flying a C-141 full of Delta and other "inspectors" into Baghad AP and droping them off would not be an option.)

5. How would you have presented the evidence?

6. How would you prove the WMDs or evidence was in fact valid--for instance this evidence clearly is from Iraq. How would you present the evidence to the world?

Anything else along these line that you would like to add would be appreciated.

[ethics]

And how does this mesh with the Russians' objections to our incursion into Iraq?


That has not changed, Lissa. The news feed from Moscow is a LITTLE bit less aggressive regarding Iraq. They are now covering more from the business angle, as to what deals will be done, etc... than the Americans.

Speaking of Russian news, I have to hand it to them. It's impressive and MUCH better than the crap US produces. Know why? No time constraints. Their investigative reporting is exceptional AND long. It's like watching History channel with life feeds.

Problem, of course, is WHAT they CHOOSE to cover.

[ShinyTop]

Well, Neo, I do not have the assets of the US military, intelligence services, and diplomatic services at my beck and call and neither do I have the exact capabilities of these services.

But I don't need to tell you where the WMD's were because the administration claimed they knew where they were. Assuming for the moment that the Pentagon and CIA are not led by morons I cannot imagine a scenario where if we knew where they were we would not track their every movement. Given that information I imagine a strike while they are being moved, while they are in transit to their deployment locations or a strike on their storage.

Gulf War I saw the deployment of Apaches fueled by C-130's with overhead cover by fighters and fighter-bombers. We may have paid a price but if we truly knew where they were we could have confirmed their possession and the extent of their threat by examination of the products and their means of delivery.

By the way, I did not and do not give a rat's ass about proving anything to anybody but the American people. And all I want for proof is seeing these threats. Would not hurt to share the evidence they were there.

On a personal basis I waited until we had subdued the entire country and found no evidence before I realized we had been snookered or led by a grossly incompetent leader for a war. Take your pick.

Now tear my scenario's apart, I have never claimed the first hand experience necessary to plan and implement such a move. But when you have the expertise that we have demonstrated over the years, Son Tay, even the Iran hostage recovery debacle, I have faith that given the mission our armed forces could have determined the facts without the war.

Punting for a moment I still agree with the war. I am just not willing to excuse, ever, our elected representatives lying to the American people or, if you really insist on the possibility that we were not intentionally lied to, led into a war for reasons that were not verified but could have been.


Edited to add I would have accepted the word of the Pentagon along with the photographic and physical evidence from the raid. Hell, I would have taken their word. I even believed the president because I could not conceive that he would make such statements and assertions without having absolute evidence. I should have known he lacked character after the Patriot Act.

[archidante]

In news that will probably not even be noticed, something huge is supporting Bush's claim on ties of Iraq, Saddam, and terrorism. That huge entity is Russia.

(from LGF)



Russian President Vladimir Putin says Russian intelligence warned the United States that Saddam Hussein was planning terror attacks in the US—after September 11: Putin Says Russia Warned U.S. on Saddam (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040618/wl_nm/russia_us_iraq_dc).Russian President Vladimir Putin, in comments sure to help President Bush, declared Friday that Russia knew Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had planned terror attacks on U.S. soil and had warned Washington.


Putin said Russian intelligence had been told on several occasions that Saddam’s special forces were preparing to attack U.S. targets inside and outside the United States.

“After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing ‘terrorist acts’ on the United States and beyond its borders,” he told reporters.

“This information was passed on to our American colleagues,” he said. He added, however, that Russian intelligence had no proof that Saddam’s agents had been involved in any particular attack.


I was wondering about this...although I have seen it in the mainstream press, there doesn't seem to be much discussion of it from the left. If Bush was getting this info, plus information that there may be WMD, seems like the wisest course would have been to err on the side of caution and go after Iraq. Now we seem to be sitting back while Iran play reindeer games with it's nuke program. I'm confused.

[ethics]

The media, for whatever reasons, chose to report this and then ignore it. The media has been using their papers/tv to let the rest of America know that Bush lied (lying means telling something while having full awareness that what they are saying is wrong or opposite to the truth) about the WMD's. If they start putting forth news like this thread, it will shatter their strongest point.

By media I mean, mostly, the OpEds or the Opinion official stance of the papers (NYT's left side of the OpEd pages for example). Although there's plenty of evidence in the bias of the reporting in news items that should be objective but is not.