News & Politics - Putin says Russia Gave US intel on Iraq

SuperDeluxe · 06-18-2004, 01:17 PM

Quote:

By BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russian President Vladmir 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.

However, a commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported this week that while there were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, they did not appear to have produced "a collaborative relationship."

Also Thursday, a top Russian diplomat called for international inspectors to resolve conclusively the question of whether Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction.

"This problem must be resolved ... because to a great extent it became the pretext for the start of the war against Iraq," the Interfax news agency quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov as saying. He said such a finding would allow the U.N. Security Council to "finally close the dossier on Iraqi weapons."

In the wake of the invasion of Iraq, Putin sharply rebuked the United States for going to war despite opposition within the U.N. Security Council and said the threat posed to international security by the war was greater than that posed by Saddam.

But Putin's relationship with Bush is warm by the accounts of both leaders, and last week he said he has no patience for those who criticize Bush on Iraq.

"I don't pay attention to such publications," Putin said of media criticism of Bush at the end of the Group of Eight summit in the United States, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency.

Putin said opponents who criticize Bush on Iraq "don't have any kind of moral right. ... They conducted exactly the same kind of policy in Yugoslavia."

Russia vehemently opposed the NATO bombing attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999, which the United States pushed for under President Clinton.

StellaSlight · 06-18-2004, 04:43 PM

Here's another article of the same news. From www.bbcnews.com :

Quote:

Putin says Iraq planned US attack

Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.
He said Russia's secret service had information on more than one occasion that Iraq was preparing acts of terror in the US and its facilities worldwide.

Mr Putin said he had no information the Iraqi ex-leader was behind any attacks.

It came a day after US President George W Bush insisted there had been links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

He disputed the preliminary findings of a US commission investigating the 9/11 attacks on Washington and New York that found no "credible evidence" of a relationship between the two.

Surprise remarks

Speaking on a visit to Kazakhstan, Mr Putin said Russia had warned the US on several occasions that Iraq was planning "terrorist attacks" on its soil.

"After the events of 11 September 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.

He said the information received by Russian intelligence suggested Iraq was planning attacks in the United States, "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets".

But he said it did not change Russia's opposition to the war in Iraq.

"Despite that information... Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," he said.

He added: "It is one thing to have information that (Saddam) Hussein's regime was preparing acts of terrorism - we did have this information and we handed it over.

"But we did not have information that they were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things."

The BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says Mr Putin's remarks are a surprise - considering his vocal opposition to the US-led war in Iraq.

But they will come as a relief to President Bush, following the bi-partisan commission's report saying it had found no credible evidence of a collaboration between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Putin... hmm, definately weird man. I wonder what he's expecting from the recent ass-kissing...

It's hard to believe any source of report that Iraq was a threat to the US after all the declarations of failure by the different US intelligences.
So, if I understand it correctly, what Putin is trying to say, in a very messy way (see the bold lines), is that : Iraq was preparing attacks on US, therefore acts of terrorism, but wasn't involved in any terrorists acts, and that they didn't have weapons.
Hmm. What a fine bottom line. Little bit contradictory if you ask me.

On his opposition of the war in Iraq he said (from SD's quote) : "... the threat posed to international security by the war was greater than that posed by Saddam."
What a bunch of crap, Vladimir. If Saddam was such a threat, he would have been to the whole Western world, not only the US, so how would a war against him would be a greater threat to the world? If Putin really considered Iraq to be a terrorist threat, he wouldn't have been one of the firmest opponents to the war, unless he condones terrorism (which is unlikely the case, ie Chechnya). Saying that he has no patience for those who criticized Bush on Iraq is kinda ironic because he must have forgotten that he was in the same lot. Not so long ago.
And criticizing people who actually were in favour of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, while he would have let Milosevic kill all those Albanians, is surely not a good way to gain sympathy and credibility.

I find the timing for those declarations by Putin just perfect for Bush, after the recent report by the 9/11 commission.

BTW, one thing I really think funny, is how George W. Bush disputes that report (quote from BBC News:

Quote:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda," he told reporters.

Best Quote of the Month by Dubya.

Walloo · 06-18-2004, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Saying that he has no patience for those who criticized Bush on Iraq is kinda ironic because he must have forgotten that he was in the same lot. Not so long ago.

I think he said that targeting France and Germany (and the other countries) coz they were against the war in Iraq but were into the one in Yugoslavia. Its kinda to say "how dare you be against that when you did the same thing".

Putin and Bush, its about business, they're both into the oil market, I think it answers many question as to why this why that...

Quote:

Moscow was the largest crude oil producer, with 11 million barrels per day (mbd) output, which however dipped to 6 mbd till 1998. Now with Washington promising to invest huge sums in the Russian energy sector, both countries have pledged to end oil price volatility and ensure greater predictability in supplies. More importantly, the pact may place Moscow in a position that would give OPEC in general, and the Saudis in particular, a run for their money.

StellaSlight · 06-19-2004, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Walloo
I think he said that targeting France and Germany (and the other countries) coz they were against the war in Iraq but were into the one in Yugoslavia. Its kinda to say "how dare you be against that when you did the same thing".

I know what he meant. He's plain dumb, because both interventions had different motives, and if he can't see that, he's even thicker than I thought, and it makes me wonder about why he really opposed to the war (not that crap about how the intervention was more dangerous for the world).

Enigma, I.C. · 06-19-2004, 08:00 AM

I don't believe Putin. If the Russians had given Bush intelligence about the supposed Iraq-9/11 connection (which doesn't exist) then Bush and his talking heads would have been rushing at warp speed to scream it from every rooftop and on every media outlet from Fox News to "Get up, Cleveland!" when they were building their case to invade Iraq.

ceilirose · 06-19-2004, 09:29 AM

Putin's information failed to reach at least one US Government agency - this quote is from a Reuters article:

Quote:

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters he did not know anything about the information that Putin said Russia passed on. No such information was communicated from Russia through the State Department, he said.

"Everybody's scratching their heads," said one State Department official, who asked not to be named.

The rest of the article:

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=5460383

The Washington Post also had an article basically saying the same things as the others. Towards the end of the article there was an interesting 'revelation' -

Quote:

Two years ago, in an interview with British documentary makers after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Putin said he had personally warned Bush a day or two before the assaults that some kind of terrorist operation seemed to be in the works.

In that interview, as in his latest one, Putin did not specify where or when an attack was to have taken place. U.S. officials have said that the information provided by the Russians was not detailed enough for action to be taken.

The link is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun18.html although you need a subsciption for that site.

I'm with the skeptics. If this information was valid Bush & Co. would have had all their spokepeople out saturating the media with this news prior to March 2003.

AlexEvans · 06-22-2004, 08:59 PM

Actually, not sharing the source of intelligence information makes sense - and it doesn't sound like Russia gave any useful details anyway.

I'm not surprised the State Dept. was, as usual, clueless.

Putin's right at least about Yugoslavia. You can support both wars, or only the war in Iraq, or neither. But supporting the war in Yugoslavia and not the one in Iraq is extremely inconsistent, since all the justifications in Yugoslavia were present in Iraq as well as new ones.

ceilirose · 06-23-2004, 03:16 AM

Putin doesn't stand on any higher moral ground on this issue. Does anyone remember Chechnya? Putin is coming under increasing pressure and criticism for alleged abuses happening there on the part of Russian soldiers.

There is also talk of increasing authoritarianism on his part in ruling Russia.

He's free to make any kind of comment that he wants but he really can't be taken seriously. In fact I read an op-ed somewhere that even Russians are scratching their heads at Putin's comments. The same piece compared the fact that prior to 9/11 Putin and Russia were criticized for human rights abuses in Chechnya. After 9/11 when Putin declared his sympathy for the US suddenly Chechnya was a part of the war on terror.

StellaSlight · 06-23-2004, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AlexEvans
But supporting the war in Yugoslavia and not the one in Iraq is extremely inconsistent, since all the justifications in Yugoslavia were present in Iraq as well as new ones.

Really? Cause if I remember correctly, the reason UN and NATO intervened both times in Yugoslavia was for humanitarian reasons, which the intervention in Iraq was NOT, no matter what the Conservatives try to claim now that Saddam's been caught.
The reasons of the intervention in Yugoslavia were that there were ethnic wars and ethnic cleansing there.
The reasons of the intervention in Iraq were that Iraq was associated with Al-Quaeda and that they were a threat to the US (WDM! WDM!).

While the first reasons were real and proven, the second ones were a bold lie and without any existent proofs.
While the interventions in Yugoslavia had been a logical reaction to a situation in the world, the intervention in Iraq had been long planned, even before 9/11, and when it occured, it had no relation whatsoever with the situation in Iraq at that time.
While the interventions in Yugoslavia was based on experts' reports that the region needed a foreign intervention, the Bush administration acted in spite of the experts' reports, discrediting the latter in the meanwhile.

There are differences between those two interventions and supporting one and not the other is something not only possible, but also logical. The inconsistency is not in the opposition of the war in Iraq, it's for people to change war justifications : one day, you go in Iraq because there's a link between Saddam and Al-Quaeda; the day after, it's because Iraq's such a threat to the world with their WMD; and now, you went to free the Iraqi people from Saddam. What will it be next? The war in Iraq is a war of democracy?

ceilirose · 06-23-2004, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by StellaSlight

There are differences between those two interventions and supporting one and not the other is something not only possible, but also logical. The inconsistency is not in the opposition of the war in Iraq, it's for people to change war justifications : one day, you go in Iraq because there's a link between Saddam and Al-Quaeda; the day after, it's because Iraq's such a threat to the world with their WMD; and now, you went to free the Iraqi people from Saddam. What will it be next? The war in Iraq is a war of democracy?

Well I think Bush did say that God told him that Iraq wanted to be a democracy, didn't he? If not those exact words it was something close to that.

With this Administration..the reasoning of the war depends on the current political situation and how Bush is doing in the Presidential polls.

StellaSlight · 06-23-2004, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ceilirose

With this Administration..the reasoning of the war depends on the current political situation and how Bush is doing in the Presidential polls.

Yeah, that's also why the commission that is investigating on the unfoundable-WMD question will give their final report on March 2005, after the re-elections, and not before.
Because you know, according the Bush, the UN inspectors who were doing a crucial job in Iraq, determining whether or not the WMD were there, and covering the entire Iraqi territory, had enough time to do so within mere months, while an ENTIRE YEAR isn't enough for a commission to understand what went wrong with the US intelligences.
But no, of course, both times, Bush had no hidden agenda. No sir, no!

SuperDeluxe · 06-23-2004, 08:33 AM

So the ruthless murder of thousands of shi'ites and thousands of kurds, that had nothing to do with it either? Because thats right, if anyone uses those reasons, they are just conservative trying to spin it.

StellaSlight · 06-23-2004, 02:46 PM

Right, SD, then maybe you should know that the current US administration, which was almost the same than the Bush Sr administration, let the same insane man kill his people without blinking when it was advantageous for them. Cause who cares about Iraqis being killed by Saddam when Saddam was doing the US a favour by wiping Iran with the weapons that were given to him by the US?

So why don't you keep your humanitarian reasons for someone else? It's so great to be righteous now, but the thing is that the humanitarian reasons were brought up before the war by NO ONE in the Bush administration, save maybe Powell who brought up how Saddam was someone who should not be trusted because of his past actions.
It's easy to change justifications afterwards, when one understands that the first reason (the WMD) isn't bitable anymore.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Putin says Russia Gave US intel on Iraq