interesting, and...developing... -- Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam' MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said. The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday, according to the Interfax news agency. The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan. However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks. "After September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Interfax quoted Putin as saying. "Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam's regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said. Putin made his comments in response to a question from reporters seeking clarification on similar statements leaked by an unnamed intelligence officer in a dispatch by Interfax. U.S. President George W. Bush personally thanked the head of one of the Russian intelligence services for the information, which he called "very valuable," said CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty. Russia opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, but Putin said the issue of going to war was separate from a potential Iraqi threat. He said there were international norms that weren't observed in carrying out the war. The United States never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.
I agree this is very interesting and I'm wondering why the Admin. didn't present this information earlier when they were making the case for war. This is the type of information that would've been very effective in Powell's briefing to the UN by saying that even those countries who oppose the invasion believe that Saddam's regime is a threat to the US.
From the Iraqis standpoint it may have been a pre-emptive strike because they were threatened by our nation. That's the same rationale we used, only in their case they really were threatened.
If a country (US) has threatened another country (Iraq) with invasion, don't you think they (Iraq) would start planning a way to fight back?
"I see your true colors Shining through I see your true colors And that's why I love you So don't be afraid to let them show Your true colors True colors, true colors"
I looked into his eyes and knew I could trust him. So this is the same Russia that didn't support our invasion.
More bad news for the liberals. First the economy is booming, now there is building justification for the war in Iraq. Better find something else to complain about.
Wow, a building justification for the war. I like this new modus operandi- Invade when we feel like it, come up the justification at our leisure. All is right with the world.
I'm sure a few more prison torture pics (taken months ago) will find their way to the media again soon.
If by my true colors you mean the truth then yes you do see them shining through. If, as I suspect, this another attempt to try and portray those that seek the truth rather than blindly follow what this administration claims is the truth as sympathizing with Saddam or terrorists, you are gravely mistaken. Look at my statement. Do you believe that Saddam wasn't in danger of being invaded by the U.S? Did the U.S. not establish a policy that if one claimed or suspected there was a threat, then preemptive attacks were justified? That is one of the many reasons that some of us were against the war. It presented the idea that if a country suspected an attack it was ok to attack the other country first. That's this administration's logic and not my own. Trust me that's not the way I would have the country I love being run. If you can argue that neither of the things I stated are true, then go ahead and do so and we will debate. If, instead, all you can do you is use Cindy Lauper to insuate that I sympathize with Saddam or Terrorists, then you are barking up the wrong tree, and it only shows your lack of argument, your lack of understanding about the United States of America, and your lack of understanding about freedom.
The following is an excerpt from a Newsmax.com article: The thing I find interesting about this is that the person making this statement is a democrat.
For the record I'm not defending Iraq's actions if the Putin comments are true. I've condemned the idea of a pre-emptive strike from the beginning. I'm being consistent. I thought it was bad when Bush wanted to do it to Iraq, and if this is true I think it's bad that Iraq would do it to the U.S. But if the administration places this type of philosophy toward as acceptable, then there is a danger that other nations will follow our lead. As for the information being accurate I have one nagging question. If there was such a strong tie between Saddam and Al-Qaeda or any other threatening terrorist organization, how is that in that time they weren't able to attempt any attacks? And if there was such a connection was it really a threat to us? After all despite supposedly wanting to attack the U.S. with terrorist attacks, Iraq and Al-Qaeda weren't able to pull it off And If there were threats surely they weren't too severe or Russia, which obviously knew about them, wouldn't have been so against the invasion.
I agree, on the surface that would appear to be true but Saddam owed the Russians many millions of $$$ and Putin did not want to jepordize the $$$. Which will most likely happen now that the New Iraq want most of its debts to dropped(at least thats what the US wants to happen). Coincidencely the three main opponents to the liberation of Iraq were all owed great amounts of $$$. Germany, Russia, and France ( which was doing a fair amount of business with Saddam at the time) were owed millions. I can see why they opposed the war, however, their reasoning had more to do with $$$ than some great moral stance or lack of justification.
So Iraq had contacts with Al Qaeda. BFD. Sudan and Saudi Arabia had contacts with Al Qaeda as well. Where is the proof that Iraq had something to do with 9/11?
Looks like Chalabi wasnt the only one taking the stupid neocons in the administration for a ride. Putin, the old KGB hand, also played a role in this debacle. For the price of a few phonecalls to the right people and some slick reports, Putin was able to help weaken, demoralise and completely isolate the U.S. in the world
