Here’s a blockbuster story that was kept under wraps for a good long while. Russia ** knew ** that Saddam planned terror attacks against the US and provided us with that intelligence information.
ASTANA, Kazakhstan (Reuters) - 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.
This kind of information certainly supports GWB's claims that Iraq under Saddam represented a danger to the US. It also helps explain why Bush simply would not view the possession of bio/chemical/nuclear WMD by Saddam as an acceptable possibility.
I hope this story acquires some serious legs and we get some more detail on it. It has the capacity to substantially change the debate during this election year.
Can you imagine Kerry arguing that Iraq was not a danger since we found no WMD. Bush destroys him by disclosing the terror attacks on US soil Saddam had in the planning stage.
You guys are tooooooo much. Now Vladimer is Bush's stooge who is making up stories to bolster Bush's popularity at home to influence the outcome of the US election. If Vlad would rather have Bush than Kerry, is that a good endorsement or a bad one?
So all the time Russia and Putin opposed the US military action in Iraq and said nasty things about US foreign policy, he was right and on target and elevated to the level of statesman of Chirac. Now he says that he passed along intelligence of planned Iraqi sponsored terrorist attacks on the US and he becomes a bum and a stooge unworthy of belief.
Frankly, I give a lot of credence to Putin's statements. When someone who opposes what you have done and what you are doing discloses something that might actually undermine his own position and bolster the position that he opposes, that is usually a pretty good indication of truth. In law, we call that an "admission against interest." Such admissions against interest have a very high degree of reliability.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Such admissions against interest have a very high degree of reliability.
[/QUOTE]
Not with Russians. It's a standard bargaining tool in business there. :)
Frankly, I don't give a damn if Saddam did have his sights on us. I don't believe he was capable of success. Remember: This is the same dictator who was fooled by his own minions into thinking he still had WMD.
More directly, on Putin's claims, once again we only have horoscopes. Nothing that can be released to the public? Isn't this like that speech Condi was supposed to give on 9/11? embarrassing truth turned state secret? Only here the embarrassing part is the hollowness under the shell of an argument.
Notice that US officials claim Putin's information was not new to us. Our public domain information on Iraq has proven itself false several times over. Classified intel can hardly be more compelling, otherwise some nugget would have bubbled up over the past year+. So if we knew what Putin had to tell us, and what we know is wrong, I guess that means what Putin had to say is also wrong, eh?
It never ceases to amaze me how little role FACTS have in helping people formulate their opinions and poiints of view. People form an opinion and then believe the things that support it and disbelieve the things that don't support it.
The FACT is that Putin today claimed "that Russia knew Iraq's Saddam Hussein had planned terror attacks on U.S. soil and had warned Washington."
There are only two ways Putin could be lieing. First, Russia did NOT know of any such planned terror attacks. Second, Russia did not warn Washington of them.
Either possible lie would be so easily proven to be a lie that a person would be nuts to make up that story.
The issue of whether what Russian intelligence thought it knew was accurate is a whole different issue. And that issue is really irrelevant in terms of how important this story is and how it will impact the election debate.
To be honest, this all sounds like bolting the stable door when you don't even own a horse.
I think we are overflowing with facts, most change daily, I'm sure you'd agree myvoice. You should also know that elections are never won on facts! ha.
Having said that, I can believe Saddam and a whole host of others would want to harm us, our economy or otherwise. I think the president should leave that one hanging out there and not force pieces into the puzzle.
just wondering why Putin did not speak up earlier? How come the media didn't pick up on this before? you can't blame people for raising their eyebrows, particularly as this is coming out one day after the panel declares there was no proof to justify war with Iraq. Quite bad timing.
Perhaps it would have been more convincing if Russia spoke up earlier with of course subsequent media attention on this issue.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
It never ceases to amaze me how little role FACTS have in helping people formulate their opinions and poiints of view. People form an opinion and then believe the things that support it and disbelieve the things that don't support it.
The FACT is that Putin today claimed "that Russia knew Iraq's Saddam Hussein had planned terror attacks on U.S. soil and had warned Washington.".
[/QUOTE]
MV, how is it a fact? Russia did not offer any proof to back this statement. The only fact is that Putin uttered those words.
I was online, reading AP news updates, when this news item was flashed in a new update. And the very first draft of this 'news' that came out said that "Putin says Russia had informed the US that Saddam was planning terror attacks on the US, but when asked, US intelligence sources expressed surprise, and said they did not know of any such information."
Within minutes, a new update was posted, with the same US sources saying that "The information provided by the russians did not add anything to what the US already knew".
Election year tactics is what this is. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours is what Putin and Bush are doing.
Look, MV, even if Bush's initial decision is vindicated (not that it needs to be at this point) it would not in any way help change the sad fact of his subsequent poor managemnet. For Bush's side of the argument on Iraq, reasons why can no longer matter; we are there and we must deal with that whether or not the initial reason was just. For the other side of the argument it can be useful, but only in limited ways. Again, we are there and we must deal with it. But for this side understanding the reasons why Bush's team went in can help us to understand their driving ideology concerning the conduct of war, the objectives which they deem important and how to counter any of their mistakes.
Putin's admission, even if true, does not give us any answers to all the Hows. Bush's supporters may jump up and down screaming 'We were right!' if this is true, but their side is still wrong in everything that follows. And it is that which matters. Maybe you think vindication of the casus belli (though this part of it was never elaborated with specifics, and still hasn't) will encourage others to see the wisdom of your side's action. Maybe reflection upon it will urge others to help in Iraq. That's a false hope. And really one that's quite typical of the Bush team's approach: celebration of one fact does not lead anywhere when all others are ignored. This point may be scored (but it hasn't yet, not without proof) but it will not be a win because Bush has refused contracts to others, ignored fundamentals of diplomatic etiquette, allowed Iraq to fall to pieces, etc.
Just like the obsession over WMD caches and Oil For Food, one right will not make it all right. If Bush's side scores with any single point it will be irrelevant without supplement on related points. And by now they've dug the hole so deep on so many points that I'm not sure they can save this game. That's the saddest FACT of all.
Good analysis. I think the election debate may very well focus on balancing the WHYs with the HOWs. If the WHY is significantly strong, I think the failures in the HOWs become less important. People can say "Gee, we didn't do that very well." Or "that wasn't very well thought out. We should have done it this way." When people have lost their lives because of the screwups, they take on greater importance. If the underlying purpose (WHY) is also just a big screwup, then you've got a real problem that is not able to be overcome. However, if the purpose was right/justified/good, and the purpose was fulfilled, then you've got a good debate as to whether the purpose was worth it even though the screwups in execution occured.
If Bush can say "I told you that Saddam and Iraq was a clear and present danger to the security of the US" and he can "prove" to enough voters that this was the case (i.e. "even Putin and Russia told us of planned terrorist attacks inside the US to be executed by Saddam"), his position is strengthened. Saddam is gone and Iraq does not pose a clear and present danger to the US anymore.
If the debate is whether the loss of lives (even though caused by poor execution and planning) was worth it in order to prevent a Sarin gas attack in the NYC subways, I think Bush wins. The Democrats themselves effectively waged their primary campaigns by pointing out that Saddam would still be in power today instead of in a prison if "so and so" had been President. If you can now overlay the image of dead subway commuters over that argument, you've got a powerful campaign argument.
Kaleem: Read my post again. The FACT that you identify is the very same one that I pointed out.