Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Did anyone notice?	Itsdb	06/19/04
Putin says Russia gave U.S. information about potential Iraqi attacks in United States By Bagila Bukharbayeva The Associated Press ASTANA, Kazakhstan - "Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday his government warned Washington that Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad - an assertion that appears to bolster President Bush's contention that Iraq was a threat. Putin emphasized that the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the U.S.-led war last year, but his statement was the second this month in which he has offered at least some support for Bush on Iraq. "After Sept. 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," Putin said. "Despite that information ... Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," he said in the Kazakh capital, Astana, after regional economic and security summits. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts. "It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," he said. Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the alleged plots or mention whether they were tied to al-Qaida. He said Bush had personally thanked one of the leaders of Russia's intelligence agencies for the information but that he couldn't comment on how critical it was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. In Washington, a U.S. official said Putin's information did not add to what the United States already knew about Saddam's intentions. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Putin's tip didn't give a time or place for a possible attack. Bush alleged Thursday that Saddam had "numerous contacts" with al-Qaida and said Iraqi agents had met with the terror network's leader, Osama bin Laden, in Sudan. Saddam "was a threat because he had terrorist connections - not only al-Qaida connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations," Bush said." Why is it the press only begrudgingly acknowledged these facts?
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 06/21/04 9:05 am: Who said anything about trusting the Russians...I'm just irritated at how manipulative the press is. Let's dissect the article a bit shall we? Everything about it attempts to undermine Bush's credibility in spite of what the disclosure means... "an assertion that appears to bolster President Bush's contention that Iraq was a threat." It doesn't really give any credibility to Bush, it only APPEARS to do so. "Putin emphasized that the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the U.S.-led war last year" The EMPHASIS is on the fact that Russia didn't play along with the war, not that Putin was validating Bush's reasons for going to Iraq. Russia of course didn't WAVER in it's FIRM opposition to the U.S.-LED WAR, very strong wording compared to the begrudging credit given to Bush... "at least some support for Bush on Iraq" As if there was no other justification? Forget the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, the daily firing at American and British jets, the failure to comply with the UN, etc...after 9-11 should we wait for someone to make good on their threats? The article then goes on to interpret another of Putin's comments, again portraying Bush as questionable. "He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts. Putin said "known" terrorist attacks, the article uses "actually" to convey doubt. "Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the alleged plots or mention whether they were tied to al-Qaida." Was it necessary to ELABORATE on the details? Since he didn't it would only APPEAR to support Bush. What difference does it make whether or not it was TIED TO AL-QAIDA? "he couldn't comment on how critical it was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq." Did it need to CRITICAL? Again, strong words chosen to cast doubt. "In Washington, a U.S. official said Putin's information did not add to what the United States already knew about Saddam's intentions. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Putin's tip didn't give a time or place for a possible attack." What did the official ACTUALLY say? Would context have helped here? Here the article just says "so what." "Bush alleged Thursday that Saddam had "numerous contacts" with al-Qaida and said Iraqi agents had met with the terror network's leader, Osama bin Laden, in Sudan. Saddam "was a threat because he had terrorist connections - not only al-Qaida connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations," Bush said." Why did the article mention al-Qaida two more times? Putin's comments said nothing about al-Qaida, yet on three occasions the article makes al-Qaida the focus, which APPEARS to bolster the 9-11 commission's NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE phrase instead of validating a reason to take Hussein out of the picture. Clarification/Follow-up by drgade on 06/21/04 5:52 pm: Looking for motive of Putin's news release? ....Follow the money! What press release will benefit Putin?
Answered By		Answered On
drgade		06/19/04
Putin sounds as two-faced as much of our press and TV. He makes it sound like he gave the information that we should have listened to, but didn't want us to do anything about it. There's a man who is to be high on the not-to-trust list. The Pravda mentality is inbred in him: tell only the side of the facts that support your lying bias.

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!