Putin reveals intelligence confirming Saddam planned attack on America

[Urban Ranger]

The US also has plans to attack all different countries in the world. By your logic, the rest of the world should join forces and attack the US pre-emptively.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Even if the intelligence is true, that Saddam had plans to attack the US. So what?

Al Queda had plans to attack. so what?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The efforts to deny the significance of this are quite valiant.

Basically, whether Bush lied or not is a non-issue, that is highly symbolical. The US went to Iraq. The war was a stunning success, but the ocupation goes badly.

Whether the war was justified or not is now something to gloat about, and certainly not something that will change the actual situation.

The main difference it could make, is that the Bush propaganda machine uses it efficiently to help Bush getting reelected. That's about it.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The US also has plans to attack all different countries in the world. By your logic, the rest of the world should join forces and attack the US pre-emptively.

And I am sure you would love to lead the charge Anyway, how would you fight terrorism, turn over all Jews to them?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The US also has plans to attack all different countries in the world. By your logic, the rest of the world should join forces and attack the US pre-emptively.

Saddam to Iraq Minister of Defense: so are the plans to attack US cities complete?

IMOD: Not yet sir, we're working on them.

S: You are aware, chabibi, that every professional defense ministry maintains on the shelf plans for attacking any country that could be its adversary. We must have similar plans.

IMOD: well, sir of course we do have plans on the shelf for Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - including US forces IN Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

S:No, we must also have plans to attack the US homeland

IMOD:well, no sir, not to challenge your infinite wisdom, but thats a hard nut to crack. After all, we dont have much of a navy, our no intercontinental range bombers or missiles -- I mean no country with our resources, at our distance from North America keeps plans for attacking the continental US.

S: You misunderstand my meaning - our intell services could launch a terrorist attack, either alone or in conjunction with a terrorist group

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Basically, whether Bush lied or not is a non-issue, that is highly symbolical. The US went to Iraq. The war was a stunning success, but the ocupation goes badly.

Whether the war was justified or not is now something to gloat about, and certainly not something that will change the actual situation.

The main difference it could make, is that the Bush propaganda machine uses it efficiently to help Bush getting reelected. That's about it.

IF the US public see this a necessary war of self defense, they can maintain "will" through a bad occupation, indefinitely. Which in turn effects the view on the ground, both among our enemies and our friends.

Similarly this may help Tony Blair politically. And even John Howard.

It impacts the view of the US around the world. IF it proves true, that is, which I admit awaits further info. If it proves true, it shows that the US intervention in Iraq is NOT evidence of a US imperial drive for power, for oil, to help Israel, etc. It shows it to be an act of self defense. This impacts the hearts and minds battle around the world.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lincoln


And I am sure you would love to lead the charge Anyway, how would you fight terrorism, turn over all Jews to them?

Dont go there. lets keep this on topic, if possible.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The main difference it could make, is that the Bush propaganda machine uses it efficiently to help Bush getting reelected. That's about it.

actually this is GOOD timing for Kerry. Its not to late for him to select an Iraq hawk as VP. Id suggest Ex-senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska, for a Kerry-Kerrey ticket. Di*k Gephardt is also a possible choice.

[Sava]

yes, let's trust mr. putin, former KGB spook... I mean, if you can't trust former KGB agents, who can you trust?

[lord of the mark]

Look lets assume, for the sake of argument, that Russian intell DID have reports Iraq was planning a terrorist act against the US. Suppose Putin had sat on it. Suppose then that Iraq intell had pulled it off. And then assume that its somehow came out that Russia knew, and didnt tell us. What would THAT do to US-Russian relations????

Maybe Russia had motive to pass bad info. Arguable. But if they had good info, their motive to pass it on is very clear.


Of course if your Bayesian prior is that theres no way Saddam could have had such plans, cause, well, Saddam just didnt do crazy stuff like that, then it makes sense to focus on the Russian motives to pass bad info.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by The diplomat
As expected, the liberals will ignore this info since it supports Bush's claim that Iraq was a threat.

Talk about expected.

[lord of the mark]

hat tip to the Corner

"The Left: The war on Iraq is a disaster! The world hates us! You did it unilaterally! You should have gotten Russia on board. You should have gotten Putin to support a U.N. resolution. The support of Russia would show this isn't just America being imperialist, but the whole unified world coming together to face Saddam.

The Right: Well, Putin says Saddam was going to attack us with terrorists.

The Left: Well, who the hell trusts Putin and the Russians? "

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sava


yes, let's trust mr. putin, former KGB spook... I mean, if you can't trust former KGB agents, who can you trust?

Well, you guys don't trust the CIA. Maybe the KGB can do a better job?

[GePap]

You know, its very interesting- I remember Russian intelliegence during the war and what regard it was held in by the pro-war folks. Now, all of a sudden, BAM! Hail the ruskies.

I failt o see how this is more significant that the now dicredited report by the Czechs about Atta that Cheney keeps blathering about but everyone else now ignores.

Now, notice in all the pro-war responses how Putin saying they are still against the war is conviniently ignored. What explains Putin's dichodomy? If they know iraq was planning something, why would they not back the US?


Silly little story.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
You know, its very interesting- I remember Russian intelliegence during the war and what regard it was held in by the pro-war folks. Now, all of a sudden, BAM! Hail the ruskies.

I failt o see how this is more significant that the now dicredited report by the Czechs about Atta that Cheney keeps blathering about but everyone else now ignores.

Now, notice in all the pro-war responses how Putin saying they are still against the war is conviniently ignored. What explains Putin's dichodomy? If they know iraq was planning something, why would they not back the US?


Silly little story.

1. Russian intell could be wrong, I certainly never said its infallible. But still, that they provided such intell, is no small story.

2. WRT Atta in Prague - so its your position that because that bit of intel was incorrect (which i will accept for the sake of argument) that therefore all intell from another govt is wrong, and a silly story? We know what the limited base for the Atta story was - a siting by a informant for Czech intell. Who COULD have misidentified the person he saw. We dont know yet what intell Russia passed to the US. Untill we do we dont know that this is a silly little story. I presume if its not stronger than the Atta story Putin wouldnt have mentioned it today.

As for why Russia opposed the invasion even if they knew of Iraqi plans to attack, thats easy - they thought (as I presume you would affirm) that any Iraqi terror act on the US would likely be materially insignificant, and not worth the dangers of Iraqi civil war, regional instability etc. Which they would be entitled to say. Theyre NOT our treaty allies. They have NO obligation to join us in a war, even in a war of self-defense.

Did Argentina deny that the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor? No. Did the Argentina declare war on Japan? No. (at least not in '41 or '42) Theres no contradiction here.