You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.
Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, 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.
Just a thought, if we'd had another commission investigating another massive terror attack in the US that Iraq had caused, what kind of headline would it get if it was found out that Russia had warned us of an attack being planned by Iraq and the Bush administration had sat on it?
People that blame Bush (and even Clinton) for 9/11 but argue against the war on terror can't have it both ways.
I suppose the Anti-Bush response will be something like this:
Al-Qaeda attacked us not Iraq.
If Iraq was planning an attack we had to wait for them to actually do so before retaliating. Pre-emptive war is bad.
Pete (thinks letting your enemy get in the first hit is the height of stupidity)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
You are probably right Pete. However, that logic falls apart if these same people have argued Bush (and/or Clinton) should have done more to stop 9/11.
We could also go back to WW2, and say that Japan attacked us, not Germany and Italy (although we had some commercial ships sunk by the Germans).
>> I suppose the Anti-Bush response will be something like this:
>>
>> Al-Qaeda attacked us not Iraq
I would have expected an ad hominem on Putin
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Originally posted by skooly Mannish, your hypothetical question is well-noted. Personally, I've never blamed the Bush administration for failing to predict the 9/11 attacks.
That issue aside... what does this information show, if anything?
It greatly bolsters MY rationale for invading Iraq, although President Bush offered other, less attractive reasons.
Pete (supported the war but not Bush's "reasoning")
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by skooly Mannish, your hypothetical question is well-noted. Personally, I've never blamed the Bush administration for failing to predict the 9/11 attacks.
That issue aside... what does this information show, if anything?
As Pete and Jon have said, it shows that it wasn't just our intelligence that saw threats from Iraq, it was other world intelligence agencies (I'd bet the British, French, etc, also had similar info if truth be told).
In the world we finally realized existed after 9/11 (note I didn't say new world, I just think we didn't realize what was going on until 9/11), we have to deal with threats like this or we will have massive attacks again. Hopefully, dealing with these threats can be handled diplomatically, covertly, or through other methods, but that will not always be the case. Sometimes more direct action will be required, unfortunately. I just think we have to realize that.
Originally posted by MannishBoy As Pete and Jon have said, it shows that it wasn't just our intelligence that saw threats from Iraq, it was other world intelligence agencies (I'd bet the British, French, etc, also had similar info if truth be told).
In the world we finally realized existed after 9/11 (note I didn't say new world, I just think we didn't realize what was going on until 9/11), we have to deal with threats like this or we will have massive attacks again. Hopefully, dealing with these threats can be handled diplomatically, covertly, or through other methods, but that will not always be the case. Sometimes more direct action will be required, unfortunately. I just think we have to realize that.
Yep. My figgerin' bout this whole thing wzz that Iraq had an ***-whupping coming whether 9/11 happened or not.
Pete (apologizes for speaking redneck)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
Why wouldn't Bush have said anything about this before?
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Originally posted by nbdyfcnsqnc Why wouldn't Bush have said anything about this before?
Actually, I'm thinking there's a lot of stuff they're not telling us, thank goodness.
I can just imagine the adminstration saying "and Putin said"; then Putin, in his inimitable way says "who dat say dat, not me". Then who would the "loyal opposition" and the media suggest was lying?
__________________
"I was always taught to respect my elders, but it keeps getting harder to find one." - Ronny
Originally posted by 350zroadster you needed a third party info to tell you that? That's like 1991
Reinforce does not equal need.
For clarification purposes, I submit the most common definitions of "reinforce":
Quote:
re·in·force also re-en·force or re·en·force ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rn-fôrs, -frs)
tr.v. re·in·forced, re·in·forc·ing, re·in·forc·es
To give more force or effectiveness to; strengthen: The news reinforced her hopes.
To strengthen (a military force) with additional personnel or equipment.
To strengthen by adding extra support or material.
To increase the number or amount of; augment.
"To strengthen by adding extra support or material" applies best in this case. It implies that it was already established that Saddam was an enemy of the USA. The Russian report(s) reinforced that notion.
Originally posted by WashUJon Reinforce does not equal need.
For clarification purposes, I submit the most common definitions of "reinforce":
"To strengthen by adding extra support or material" applies best in this case. It implies that it was already established that Saddam was an enemy of the USA. The Russian report(s) reinforced that notion.
-Jon (strives to lessen misunderstanding)
I think everyone on face of this earth pretty much agreed on that Saddam is enemy of the US. No reinforcement is needed
Russia says Iraq planned terrorist attacks against US
