Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/20/04 8:23 am:
From the NY Daily News :

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.

the last line of this article was hilarious :

I'd say that John Kerry is in big trouble. If he can't carry Russia, he's not going to win in November.

Clarification/Follow-up by HANK1 on 06/20/04 12:43 pm:
I was thinking about Putin's motives for saying what he did. I just don't trust Russians. Sorry but ... that's the way it is! I lived through the Cold War!

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 tomder55 on 06/21/04 1:06 pm:
We are becoming a crazed culture of cheap criticism and pious moralizing, and in our self-absorption may well lose what we inherited from a better generation. Our groaning and hissing elite indulges itself, while better but forgotten folks risk their lives on our behalf in pretty horrible places.

Judging from our newspapers, we seem to care little about the soldiers while they are alive and fighting, but we suddenly put their names on our screens and speak up when a dozen err or die. And, in the latter case, our concern is not out of respect for their sacrifice but more likely a protest against what we don't like done in our name. So ABC's Nightline reads the names of the fallen from Iraq, but not those from the less controversial Afghanistan, because ideological purity — not remembering the departed per se — is once again the real aim.

Our very success after September 11 — perhaps because of the Patriot Act, the vigilance of domestic-security agencies, and the global reach of our military — has prevented another catastrophe of mass murder, but also allowed us to become complacent, and thus once more cynical and near suicidal. We can afford to be hypercritical and so groan at a Rudolph Giuliani at the 9/11 hearings only because brave men and women prevented more suicide bombings. We caricature our efforts in Iraq and demonize a good man like Paul Wolfowitz, even as a courageous and competent military took out Saddam in three weeks — and, in far less than the time that the occupations took in Germany and Japan (likewise both written off as failures of the times) allowed an autonomous and soon-to-be-elected government to take over.

Partisanship about the war earlier on established the present sad paradox of election-year politicking: Good news from Iraq is seen as bad news for John Kerry, and vice versa. If that seems too harsh a judgment, we should ask whether Terry McAuliffe would prefer, as would the American people, Osama bin Laden captured in June, more sarin-laced artillery shells found in July, al-Zarqawi killed in August, al-Sadr tried and convicted by Iraqi courts in September, an October sense of security and calm in Baghdad, and Syria pulling a Libya in November. (Victor David Hanson)

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?