Putin: Saddam's regime was planning terror attacks before Iraq war

[the_cheat]

......even if we assume to agree that russian intelligence received information and passed it on, that does not make that information reliable. Military intelligence, indeed the CIA is often wrong as well. If it were so than Russia should have presented the evidence two years ago before the UN. How convienient that he now makes this statement to support Bush who will insure an indefinite war against against the same enemies he is facing. What is missing is convincing proof.

Hmmm, kind of like how the Russian security services blamed the Moscow apartment bombing on the Chechens despite a lack of proof (and strong suspicion that the FSB was actually involved in the bombings), and then used this as an excuse to resume brutal attacks on Chechnya in 1999?

I'm not saying that the allegations are definitely untrue. I'm simply saying: consider the source, people.

 

[Borealis]

That's a easy one. When evidence doesn't reek of politica posturing. These tidbits of evidence always seem to surface at exactly the right moment to benefit W. Support for the war has reached an all time low. Then we get this evidence. The perfect timing makes me question the validity.

I'm not denying that's it true. If it is, then why didn't we hear about this before? Supposedly Putin, W and the DOD knew about this for some time. Why not tell us when it was discovered? The fact that is wasn't gives the flavor that it was invented at just the right moment. Once again, I'm not saying that it isn't true, but this flavor makes intellectually honest people doubt it.

Excuse me, but...Bush has been warning people of potential threats from Iraq for a long, long time. They WERE telling you. The press chose to distort it and claim that Bush was saying Saddam was an imminent threat. Bush never, ever said that. He stated, clearly, that America had to act BEFORE the threat became imminent, because with today's technology, an imminent threat can wipe out New York City before it can be reacted to.

As for another post where someone asked why Putin didn't bring this info to the UN in the first place...Oil-For-Food, anyone? Russians are on the list. Putin and his friends in Moscow had solid financial reasons to keep Saddam in power. Those reasons are moot now, since Saddam's gone and the UN's been caught with their hands in the oil barrel. But at the time, why would Putin have risked cutting off the bribes by giving the Americans more ammunition for their case?

Cause-and-effect, people. It's nto hard to put the pieces together with a little effort.

 

[Doctrine1st]

As for another post where someone asked why Putin didn't bring this info to the UN in the first place...Oil-For-Food, anyone? Russians are on the list. Putin and his friends in Moscow had solid financial reasons to keep Saddam in power. Those reasons are moot now, since Saddam's gone and the UN's been caught with their hands in the oil barrel. But at the time, why would Putin have risked cutting off the bribes by giving the Americans more ammunition for their case?

Cause-and-effect, people. It's nto hard to put the pieces together with a little effort.

Point taken, but who exactly was he telling? He claims he didn't sit on this until yesterday. The aritcle said he told the U.S. prior to the Iraq war. And I would take that to mean Bush officials. They would have no reason to sit on this.

~take care

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

As for another post where someone asked why Putin didn't bring this info to the UN in the first place...Oil-For-Food, anyone? Russians are on the list. Putin and his friends in Moscow had solid financial reasons to keep Saddam in power. Those reasons are moot now, since Saddam's gone and the UN's been caught with their hands in the oil barrel. But at the time, why would Putin have risked cutting off the bribes by giving the Americans more ammunition for their case?

Russia got interesting things from Iraq. Interesting indeed

 

[Christi]

Point taken, but who exactly was he telling? He claims he didn't sit on this until yesterday. The aritcle said he told the U.S. prior to the Iraq war. And I would take that to mean Bush officials. They would have no reason to sit on this.

~take care

Uhmmm, it wasn't sat on, apparently. Am I in the twilight zone or are all the people who are against the war in Iraq, now in this thread saying we should have done something about this information, to prevent attacks from Iraq and Saddam against the U.S.???? It's like the 9/11 commision in reverse, then switcho-chango. (I actually hate this Iraqi war, but darn, playing "devil's advocate" is TOO easy in this thread.:o ) Come on people, come up with something better than Putin is a big fat liar-pants, when we were all staking our honor on his when the UN stuff was going on, and he threw in with France and Germany.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Uhmmm, it wasn't sat on, apparently.

Well, so why is this such big news now?

Am I in the twilight zone or are all the people who are against the war in Iraq, now in this thread saying we should have done something about this information, to prevent attacks from Iraq and Saddam against the U.S.????

No, but could it be the same bad info we got, is the same bad info that Putin got? Think about it, there was a element that wanted Saddam rightly out, so what lengths would they go to make sure that happened? Who would you tell, and what would you be willing to tell them? We know the person we got most of our info from turned out to "allegedly" to be a spy for Iran who many distanced themselves from in being a known con man.

 

[marshlewis]

I dont know how to recieve this new revalation but things will probably become clear within a few days.

Excuse me, but...Bush has been warning people of potential threats from Iraq for a long, long time. They WERE telling you. The press chose to distort it and claim that Bush was saying Saddam was an imminent threat. Bush never, ever said that. He stated, clearly, that America had to act BEFORE the threat became imminent, because with today's technology, an imminent threat can wipe out New York City before it can be reacted to.
.

Is it possible that you are suggesting that Bush was unaware of how his speaches were being recieved by the public????????????.
Common mate this kind of hair splitting is below you.

 

[aeroz19]

When is it ever enough proof for some of you?

Ditto! What you said!

 

[aeroz19]

That's a easy one. When evidence doesn't reek of politica posturing. These tidbits of evidence always seem to surface at exactly the right moment to benefit W.

All I can say is..."Strategery!"

During the first few years of Bush's presidency I was repeatedly surprized by his genius strategery.

 

[aeroz19]

Wow! The left is starting to drop their buddy, Putin, like a hot potato. Putin has nothing to gain for disclosing this.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[UberLutheran]

Especially considering that Russia was adamantly opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and has strongly criticized our actions since the invasion?

I wonder why Putin waited only 15 months to divulge this "news"? Does anybody else wonder the same thing?

Or does anybody wonder if, considering the amount of overt LYING I've seen coming from all levels of the Bush Administration -- this "news" might be a complete fabrication (if not overt propaganda)?

But then, I forget. It MUST be true, because it was found on the INTERNET.

Where is that icon when we need it?

 

[UberLutheran]

Wow! The left is starting to drop their buddy, Putin, like a hot potato. Putin has nothing to gain for disclosing this.

Or am I the only "lefty" to wonder why Putin waited fifteen months to disclose this "revelation"?

Betcha we're going to trace this one all the way back to the Bush Administration again -- just like the "outing" of Valerie Plume.

But I forget: one is not supposed to mention "lapses" like this to the fanatical right. It's "unpatriotic".

 

[UberLutheran]

Who in the left likes Putin? He's an opponent of everything the left stands for. Moreover, he's supported Bush on any number of issues previously, quite possibly to benefit his own personal gain. (For example, he associated his actions in Chechnya with the "War on Terror," which increased his leeway to act viciously.) He wasn't in favor of the US invading Iraq, but that was because the Russian Federation had significant interests in Iraqi. He's a friend of neither side of the US political system, and he's an opportunist.

Moreover, as I've pointed out before on this issue - the Russian intel services are the same structure and much of the same personnel as they were when they were the KGB. It's just been renamed. Make your own call on their honesty and reliability.

Ann Coulter said so, and it was on the Internet, so it MUST be true!

 

[UberLutheran]

Excuse me, but...Bush has been warning people of potential threats from Iraq for a long, long time. They WERE telling you. The press chose to distort it and claim that Bush was saying Saddam was an imminent threat. Bush never, ever said that. He stated, clearly, that America had to act BEFORE the threat became imminent, because with today's technology, an imminent threat can wipe out New York City before it can be reacted to.

As for another post where someone asked why Putin didn't bring this info to the UN in the first place...Oil-For-Food, anyone? Russians are on the list. Putin and his friends in Moscow had solid financial reasons to keep Saddam in power. Those reasons are moot now, since Saddam's gone and the UN's been caught with their hands in the oil barrel. But at the time, why would Putin have risked cutting off the bribes by giving the Americans more ammunition for their case?

Cause-and-effect, people. It's nto hard to put the pieces together with a little effort.

But the 9/11 Commission reports that Bush was absolutely clueless about an impending attack, and Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11 in the least.

Of course, Bush is very often completely clueless about a lot of things. He also lies a lot. (Those of us who live in the United States are cluing in that most of the time when Bush talks, he's probably lying -- which is why Bush's poll numbers are dropping and Kerry is currently ahead of Bush 49 percent to 37 percent.)

Of course, FAUX News doesn't report stuff like that very much (if at all).

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH​

 

[the_cheat]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to UberLutheran again.

Word up.