Putin reveals intelligence confirming Saddam planned attack on America

[Spiffor]

You know, terrorism is a weapon that is generally used by rogue groups, but can be used by states as well. It is a weapon that affects public opinions efficiently, although it doesn't affect the military strenght of the enemy (unlike, say, a missile launched at a barracks).

Since Saddam could not threaten the US in any conventional way, it is very possible than its pre-emprive plans against the US (just like any country has plans against others) probably involved terrorism. It doesn't mean Saddam intended to perpetrate the terror attacks until war began.

And these plans were a failure anyway. From the first day of the attack, Saddam would have used its full power to rout the Americans (Chemicals on the troops, terror attacks in the US) if it was possible for him.

[Thorn]

Since Saddam could not threaten the US in any conventional way, it is very possible than its pre-emprive plans against the US (just like any country has plans against others) probably involved terrorism. It doesn't mean Saddam intended to perpetrate the terror attacks until war began.

I don't think Saddam Hussain is that stupid to even have planned anything unless he meant for it to be carried out. He knew we'd invade if we found out, and we did.

Most dictators try to hold onto power as long as possible, not get their country invaded unless they have some sort of mental issues.

[Spiffor]

Once again, every country makes military plans against others. Heck, even Canada had plans to invade the US until a few decades ago.

Since no Iraqi conventional military could scratch the US at home, there is no reason that Iraq had no plans involving unconventional military means. Especially with a country as agressive and dangerous as the US.

[Thorn]

Especially with a country as agressive and dangerous as the US.

Excuse me how are we aggressive and dangerous at the time Saddam was planning, we'd been under Clinton rule for 8 years, he didn't invade anybody, and didn't even punish Iraq for its violations of its international requirements for the cease-fire?

[Last Conformist]

He didn't invade anyone, but he did have the USAF bomb Iraq on a regular basis. From the Iraqi POV, clearly there was no more dangerous country than the US.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
He didn't invade anyone, but he did have the USAF bomb Iraq on a regular basis. From the Iraqi POV, clearly there was no more dangerous country than the US.

Those were not just US fighters, but coalition fighters, including European fighter planes.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Thorn
Excuse me how are we aggressive and dangerous at the time Saddam was planning, we'd been under Clinton rule for 8 years, he didn't invade anybody, and didn't even punish Iraq for its violations of its international requirements for the cease-fire?

You forget Kosovo? IIRC we also invaded Haiti at least once.

[johncmcleod]

This seems to completely ignore 1991. I think our utter decimation of his military plus 12 years of crippling sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombings gave him plenty of reason to hate us.

Er, al-Qaeda is absolutely a Sunni organization, as are most terrorist groups operating against the U.S. (Don't mention Hezbollah, I said 'operating against the U.S.' for a reason.)

Terrorist organizations, whether Sunni or not, are almost always religious fanatics who believe that America is fighting a war on Islam. Saddam doesn't fit this profile. If he did, he'd run a theocracy, not a secular government.

If he was so rational and bent on mere survival, why didn't he withdraw from Kuwait then in the first Gulf War? He had to think either A) we wouldn't be willing to fight despite going through all the expense of mobilizing half a million men or B) Iraq would win if we did attack. Neither of these are rational conclusions.

Saddam misinterpreted American orders. He didn't think anyone would care if he invaded Kuwait, after all no one cared about his war with Iran. If Saddam attacked the US, it would be declaring suicide. He knows this. He isn't crazy. If he was crazy enough to attack the US unprovoked he wouldn't have been able to lead a country for almost two decades. There is quite a difference between attacking a small country in the Middle East and attacking the most powerful nation in the world. In fact, in the 90s his food distribution system was one of the most efficient in the world. Sure he was a bad guy, but he wasn't a loony.

Obviously it is better to draw out the enemy against our soldiers in the Middle East instead of in our streets against our citizens.

Too bad fighting our enemy in the Middle East will make him multiply and draw him into our streets to fight our citizens.

Those were not just US fighters, but coalition fighters, including European fighter planes.

Yeah but the US headed the operation, they were the ones that pushed for it. Clinton also continued the sanctions that were responsible for the death of about a half million Iraqi children and made the Iraqi people dependant on Saddam, greatly aiding his ability to stay in power.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I'm going to point out the obvious. Russia says they told us about these terrorist plans, the US says they didn't.

The only assertion they didnt is to an State Department flunkie, who merely says that he didnt know about them.

[lord of the mark]

So it seems the consensus here is

1. Putin was not lying, Russia did pass something to the US prewar
2. The Russians were not passing disinfo to the US - Iraq probably did have plans.
3. But theres no story here, cause they were only plans, and may (probably or certainly for some posters) been intended for implementation only when the US attacked Iraq.

This seems far more reasonable than the "Putin lied" meme, which gets us into the broad question of why Putin lied.

But we are still left with - why did Putin make a point of raising this issue now? Was he responding to already leaked info? And by whom, and why? Or was he attempting to gain good will with the Bush admin? And why the latter if the US is as isolated, as hated as some would have us believe? If Russia is eager for US goodwill, how bad IS our soft power situation? And why piss off John Kerry, who may well be be POTUS in a few months?

I would like to see further discussion of the Russian angle of this, where there is certianly a story, even IF there isnt an Iraqi story (too little info to say on that)

[Spiffor]

Ogie started a thread with an interesting OP, that I will mercilessly copypaste here:

Putin gives
Bush a boost

Confirmation of a Saddam threat
to the U.S. undermines Kerry



President Bush got some very good news last week from one of the key 2004 battleground states: Russia. On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confided that he warned the U.S. after 9/11 but before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein was preparing terrorist attacks on America and its interests abroad.
Democrats aren't happy with this revelation and even less happy with its timing. It came just one day after John Kerry accused the Bush administration of "misleading" the American public into believing that Iraq posed a terror threat.

If Putin is telling the truth, Kerry's accusation is, at the very least, undermined. After all, the Russians had longstanding relations with Saddam and famously good information about what was happening in Baghdad. Not only that, their warning jibed with the President's own assessment.

The Democrats argue that Bush concocted an Iraqi terror connection over the objections of the intelligence community to take the country to war. But that simply isn't true.

In October 2002, CIA Director George Tenet sent a written assessment to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democrat Bob Graham, in which Tenet claimed he had 10 years' worth of "solid reporting" on a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Bush argues that no responsible post-9/11 President would shrug off such warnings. This is a tough argument for Kerry to counter. Although he voted for the war, he suffers from the traditional Democratic soft-on-national-security image. The GOP will ask: What would President Kerry have done with the Russian warning?

One answer is that there was no warning, that Putin is lying to curry favor with Bush. But this explanation raises an uncomfortable question. One of Kerry's main themes has been that Bush can't get along with foreigners. But how does that square with the accusation that the president of Russia is actively campaigning on Bush's behalf?

If, in fact, Putin did speak up now to help Bush in November, that can only mean that the Russians think Bush will win reelection.

So, evidently, do Bush's other European critics, Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schroeder of Germany. Suddenly, they are FOG (Friends of George), all smiles at the recent G-8 summit and - even more significantly - willing to give Bush a unanimous victory on Iraq at the UN Security Council. They know perfectly well that such cooperation undercuts Kerry's theme that Bush can't get along with America's allies.

Perhaps it is a coincidence, but Putin spoke up on the same day that a new Pew poll found Bush now leading Kerry in the presidential race. According to the survey, Bush's approval rating has gone up by roughly 10% in the past month.

The Pew poll also showed that 55% of Americans think Bush was right to go to war in Iraq, compared with just 38% who think it was a mistake. That is a gap of 17 points, up from a 9-point gap only a month ago.

Bush still gets comparatively low marks on his handling of the economy. But that will change. Most parts of the country are experiencing a strong economic recovery, and indicators suggest that it will continue into the fall.

If it does, Kerry will find it very hard to convince voters that they are in the midst of a depression.

Yes, I know. Polls are just a snapshot. Four months in politics can be an eternity. Anything can happen. But right now, I'd say that John Kerry is in big trouble. If he can't carry Russia, he's not going to win in November.


by Zev Chafets

[Spiffor]

The article above is interesting IMHO.

Why would Chirac, Schröder and Putin be all smiles with Bush now, knowing that the vote will be undecided, and that they can give an edge to Bush, or not. Besides, they weren't all smiles with Bush at all one year ago, right after his triumph at midterm elections.

First, I was tempted to say "Bush is quickly exhausting the US' status of hyperpower, and they want this downward spiral to continue", but I'm pretty sure Schröder couldn't care less about it, that Chirac is unable of such vision, and that Putin has more urgent business to think of.

Actually, I think the main reason for the NTL (New Transatlantic Lovefest ) is that all three leaders have understood it is too early for a multipolar world, and that the US will remain the boss for quite a few years. IMHO, this is why these different countries show love, albeit in a different fashion. And now that Russia and France have no common interest to share (multipolar world), the Paris - Berlin - Moscow axis is pretty much inexistent.

Now, there are some benefits to be nice with the US. Should Bush get re-elected, his hawkish policies will probably mean that there will be other conquests, i.e. there will be new spoils of war. Russia, France and Germany have their interests in the whole Arab world, and their interests are threatened by Bush "New Middle East" policies.
That's why the three should play nice, but not too nice: this way, should a war occur, the door to cooperation with the US (and keeping parts of the spoil) will be open. In the meantime, the current ME countries don't have that much of a choice for a powerful partner. A win-win situation

[lord of the mark]

chafets point is that theyre going with the winner.


I dont buy it.

First i think the electoral situation IS uncertain, and Putin "knows what he doesnt know"
Second, Chirac and Schroeder didnt do anything unexpected that would help Bush. A few smiles aint worth anything. Yet they have acces to the same election data as Putin.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The article above is interesting IMHO.

Why would Chirac, Schröder and Putin be all smiles with Bush now, knowing that the vote will be undecided, and that they can give an edge to Bush, or not. Besides, they weren't all smiles with Bush at all one year ago, right after his triumph at midterm elections.

First, I was tempted to say "Bush is quickly exhausting the US' status of hyperpower, and they want this downward spiral to continue", but I'm pretty sure Schröder couldn't care less about it, that Chirac is unable of such vision, and that Putin has more urgent business to think of.

Actually, I think the main reason for the NTL (New Transatlantic Lovefest ) is that all three leaders have understood it is too early for a multipolar world, and that the US will remain the boss for quite a few years. IMHO, this is why these different countries show love, albeit in a different fashion. And now that Russia and France have no common interest to share (multipolar world), the Paris - Berlin - Moscow axis is pretty much inexistent.

Now, there are some benefits to be nice with the US. Should Bush get re-elected, his hawkish policies will probably mean that there will be other conquests, i.e. there will be new spoils of war. Russia, France and Germany have their interests in the whole Arab world, and their interests are threatened by Bush "New Middle East" policies.
That's why the three should play nice, but not too nice: this way, should a war occur, the door to cooperation with the US (and keeping parts of the spoil) will be open. In the meantime, the current ME countries don't have that much of a choice for a powerful partner. A win-win situation

Like I said, i still dont see France moving forward on anything substantive.

Chirac accepted the UNSC resolution - hard to avoid, with the US being accommodating about changes, and the Iraqi rep sitting there saying "this is the language we want". And he didnt throw a tantrum at the G8 summit - he doesnt generally throw tantrums. He hasnt made a comment at all like Putins, which seems to come "out of left field" as we say here - unexpected, in no particular context, etc.


As for spoils, I dont see any. The new Iraqi govt is already using "axis of weasels" contractors IIUC, and I dont see them blocking Germany, France, Russia out entirely.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Like I said, i still dont see France moving forward on anything substantive.

Well, I've heard talks of sending troops to Iraq. Still something very diffuse, and maybe just my imagination, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is in the diplomats' minds.
Also, France could have strengthened its position as an anti-US flagwearer, as the occupation became hell. At the contrary, France kept quiet, no "I told you so", no accusations wrt the lack of substance of Bush's trashed excuses for war, etc.

That's nothing as clear-cut as Putin's decision, of course, but France could have made things look worse, from a diplomatic point of view, had we continued to play hardcore.