http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html This is some shocking stuff, but the timing is strange. Why would Bush not use this himself? Why the effort to tie Al Quaeda with Saddam if Saddam was planning his own terrorist attacks against the US? Something doesn't add up. If they claim "national security" that is one thing, but it seems that reason for secrecy would have ended when Saddam's government was overthrown. It will be interesting to see what the threat was and how immediate it was. I can't for the life of me figure out why -- with all the speculative little bits of info they have tried to extrapolate into a justification for war -- this would just come out now.
This is really interesting, and potentially big. It's also very strange, because it seems like there are only two possible scenarios, and both are problematic. Scenario #1: The evidence is credible. In this case, why wouldn't the Bush administration have been touting it for months? This would be a blockbuster if true, and (like Chris M. says) would have made hyping Zarqawi totally uncessary. Scenario #2: The evidence is questionable. In this case, why would Russia, a strong opponent of the war, be passing us bad intel that seems tailor-made to support our case for invasion? It's easy to see why Chalabi would want to pass us phony info, but what's the motivation for the Russians to do so? Obviously, there's more here than meets the eye.
Yeah, I can't figure this out either. Both scenarios have some major flaws. But it seems ironic/apt that an ex-KGB officer would either vindicate or screw over the son of a former CIA chief.
I wouldn't trust Mr. Putin if my life depended on it. It is possible that he has something that the US didn't know, and is throwing a trial ballon because he wants something in return, but that is just speculation on my part. Unless something more substancial comes up, this is a non-story.
Essentially what the story from Russia and Putin is concerns multiple warnings Putin gave to the United States (after 09/11/01 and before Bush invaded Iraq) that Saddam was planning to attack the United States, thsu justifying our invasion of Iraq and Presdient Bush! Stick that in your pipes liberals and smoke it! Also, get use to four more years of George W. Bush: He's headed for a landslide re-election! IntheNet
With what, plastic water pipes? Saddamn's handgun? Wait, when did we invade President Bush? Does Bush know about this?
Why didn't we hear about all of this? If true, it appears to be - on the surface - almost acceptable justification for the war. If Bush and the Gang had this smoking gun, why did they hide it? Why trump up WMD intelligence and confuse the sheeple with false Saddam/911 links? Why not just tell us that we know he's getting ready to launch an attack and so we must kick his ass? None of this makes a bit of sense.
At least if Bush went out and told where he got the intel, it may have dried up and Russian connections would be offed, in the very least. I guess this would be like you telling your best friend that his wife was cheating on him, but asked for your telling him be kept secret, as you are now friends with both. Let's not forget that Russia had interests in Iraq, as France and even the USA. Bush and Chirac made nice last week and now it is time for Putin to help Bush to get Russia's foot in the Iraqi door, too. The divorce has been settled and you, yourself can tell the world, that it was you who told the guy that his girl was cheating on him and if things work out, you could even hook-up with the newly single woman, too. Everyone is out for No. 1.
So, let me get this straight...Russia had evidence that Iraq was going to attack the US, passed that info onto the US and then failed to support an invasion of Iraq. Something doesn't add up. Is Putin flippant about terrorist attacks and therefore didn't see the need to act upon this info or was the info weak and Putin knew it? Murf
You may be mixing the outward face of a nation and the internal dealings. Post the Saddam/Rumsfeld pic all you want, but the three main nations against the invasion of Iraq had something to lose, think $$$. Russia, as an ally, was and is obligated to pass that information to Bush's people. That alone (as seen by them) would not be enough for Russia to lose that $$$ I asked you to think about above. While we can speculate as to the nature of the exact intel, Russia's desire to save American lives, or whatever, but the fact remains, and we do know this (and this is what I am working with here), Russia didn't want a war because they would lose $$$, influence in the very least which also turns into $$$. Are we talking of plans to attack, desires to attack or support terrorism to attack the USA? This may have affected Russia's reaction to an invasion of Iraq.
Which is all fine and good but doesn't explain why Russia was willing to veto a UN resolution authorizing force in Iraq, now does it? Something about this is very unusual.
Like the way Bush kept quite about British intelligence sources and Niger? I do see what you are saying, but they surely could have found a way to get the gist of the info out and protect the source. And, like I said, once Saddam was out of power, the need for secrecy would be gone, no? He has spent the last year trying to convince us that a meeting in Prague (that never happened) and a guy getting medical attention in Baghdad equal terrorist connections. If he had semi-credible info that Saddam was directly planning to attack the US, you don't think he would have found some way of using it?
This could a way to make and end-around Bush by Russia. In 11 days, Iraq will be turned over. Russia may be working around Bush, see and testing relations with the new Iraqi govt by getting itself involved on some, any level. Everyone is wanting to see what continued role the USA will have and see if they can get in on some of the action. In recent weeks, the USA has been reaching out to the UN, NATO and even the individual nations that opposed the war. Russia may not want to be left out. As far as using the intel, by Bush, maybe it came with distinct orders as to not reveal the sources, as Russia itself did. The USA and GB were working together to get this effort off the ground and needed to share, publicly the information. Bush was pimping the Brits and Blair was pimping our Congress. Either way, is this not just a way for Russia to get in good in the new Iraq and not to look as it was against this new govt that will take form in under two weeks, even though it was against an invasion?
I don't see what is the big deal. Anybody who is stupid (or blindly partisan) enough not to understand that Hussein was an avowed enemy of America and wanted to use his resources to find a way to hurt us will not believe or accept anything that Mr. Putin has to say. And I don't care what he has to say either. The man is supposed to be an ally and he tried to block America from taking action against Hussein, and now he comes up with stories about Iraq planning to attack America? Thanks Mr. Putin, but I think America already knew that, and that is why we took the appropiate action, even against your wishes.
This is why I get all my news from blogs: http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/002777.html In a nutshell, Putin will never be Robert Plant, because his song has not remained the same.
How come this is the first anyone has heard about any Hussein-planned attacks against America itself?
I doubt anyone here (or elsewhere) disputes whether Saddam wanted to hurt America. But you're asking the wrong question. The real question is, was Saddam capable of hurting America? There are plenty of people who want to hurt America, but we don't commit soldiers and taxpayer's money to overthrow every dictator who utters the phrase "Death to America" because they do not pose a threat. We went to war because Bush and Powell did a show & tell trying to convince us that Saddam was an imminent threat, not because they told us Saddam really really really hates our guts. Nothing that has come up over the course of the build up to the war, and during the "major combat" and the occupation has convinced me that Saddam, who lacked powerful allies and whose secularism was apparently at odds with the religious extremism of Al Qaeda, was capable of causing harm to the American people.
"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida."
I just read this on Kos, who referenced NPR and AP. I had to come over here to make sure my Sweedish/Scottish people were behaving. So, having seen nothing else but the wire report I have this to ask: 1) Why hasn't ANYONE in the administration mentioned Russian intelligence EVER? 2) Why is Putin just saying this now?
You make some good points, and I have thought about that. It is true that philosophically Hussein was a secularist who only used religion when it suited him. But I would argue that to count on the fact that two strong enemies of America who are neighbors are unlikely to consider cooperating with each other simply because they happen to have different views of religion is a huge gamble, to say the least, from a security perspective. But more importantly, to address your other point, I think that what makes Saddam Hussein different from other America-haters around the world who want to hurt us, is that he was not only a homicidal maniac who had proven willing to attack other countries, but he also had the resources which gave him a much greater potential to pursue his will. The fact that this particular maniac was sitting on the second largest reserves of the resource which fuels the world's economy gave him much greater power and made him much more dangerous than the average anti-american thug. In some ways, the war was about oil, because it was oil which gave a typical run-of-the-mill Third World murderous thug the capability to be a danger to America and the world.
I feel like I am missing something here. Between 9/11 and the time we invaded Iraq (the period covered by the report), our government was making plans to attack Iraq. If we accept that this planning on our part is acceptable and legitimate, why then would it be wrong for the Iraqis to make plans for attacking us during the same period? If you were in charge of Iraq, wouldn't you be doing the same thing?
Don't get me wrong, I don't discount the possiblity that Saddam and Al Qaeda leadership could have worked together, and I am definitely for investigating links between the two. I look at it this way - there was enough evidence to make an arrest, but not enough to convict, i.e. commit resources to an invasion. I agree with you here. Where we disagree is the "how much". Yes, he was more dangerous than the average America hater. But dangerous enough to actually go through with it? I'm not convinced.
True. If we play this way, can I enter into evidence the claims that Bush had some plan for Iraq before 9/11? Please?