Putin: Russian Intel indicated threat to US from Iraq

[Col. Crackpot]

linky

thats twice this week Putin has Bush's back. whats up?

[Galvatron]

Bush has the DNA-stained dress of a Kremlin intern and he's blackmailing Putin with it.

[Vympel]

Not the bloody foggiest. At most, it means they had some form of intelligence (probably dubious) and made it available, probably as a post 9/11 good-will gesture, and then forgot about it, until now, when you can pull it out if you want to mend relations.

Or something. Maybe he's making sure they're left alone about Chechnya.

[Axis Kast]

Talk about Putin, but not about the implications, eh?

This admission substantiates the administration's claims of an Iraqi link to terrorism, and reaffirms that Saddam was in a position to cause problems even without his armed forces doing the dirty work.

[fgalkin]

He want to be buddy buddy with Bush so he can get his little LukOil thing going.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Kamakazie Sith]

linky

thats twice this week Putin has Bush's back. whats up?

Maybe he knows something we don't. I mean just because someone backs Bush up doesn't mean they are wrong. Though on the other hand I'd like to see that evidence which makes them think that Iraq was in that position. (Haven't read the article yet)

[Vympel]

Talk about Putin, but not about the implications, eh?

Here we go.

This admission substantiates the administration's claims of an Iraqi link to terrorism,

No it doesn't you fucking idiot. Intelligence is not automatically correct, Christ, have you learned positively NOTHING in these past 3 years?

and reaffirms that Saddam was in a position to cause problems even without his armed forces doing the dirty work.

Blah Blah blah ....

[Vympel]

Another article

Putin's remarks looked certain to help President Bush, but officials at the State Department expressed bafflement, saying they knew of no such information from Russia.

Interesting.

[Axis Kast]

No it doesn't you fucking idiot. Intelligence is not automatically correct, Christ, have you learned positively NOTHING in these past 3 years?

The President was required to make a decision based on the information avaliable at the time. That's what the Presidency is about.

There was no way to independantly confirm most of the assessments after the fact. We had no network in Iraq. To install one would have taken years. Not to mention that, as we've been over time and again, Bush and his advisors made the determination that UNMOVIC and other organizations simply couldn't be considered to have made a thorough search so long as Saddam was still in power.

[Vympel]

.
There was no way to independantly confirm most of the assessments after the fact. We had no network in Iraq. To install one would have taken years. Not to mention that, as we've been over time and again, Bush and his advisors made the determination that UNMOVIC and other organizations simply couldn't be considered to have made a thorough search so long as Saddam was still in power.

Why is it, exactly, that you seem to think that simply repeating what Bush and his advisor's thought is a cogent rebuttal to criticism of what they thought?

[Axis Kast]

Why is it, exactly, that you seem to think that simply repeating what Bush and his advisor's thought is a cogent rebuttal to criticism of what they thought?

Because you ignore the entire fucking point about UNMOVIC: that it never appeared as if they would be able to get the job done effectively in the first place. With all the information before him about new programs, Bush and those around him were quite rightfully worried about whether they would be simply wasting time letting Blix run around after boogie-men planted by a regime known for its past deception.

[Vympel]

Because you ignore the entire fucking point about UNMOVIC: that it never appeared as if they would be able to get the job done effectively in the first place.

To Bush. So what?

With all the information before him about new programs

Brought to him from people like Chalabi and his INC, right?

Bush and those around him were quite rightfully worried about whether they would be simply wasting time letting Blix run around after boogie-men planted by a regime known for its past deception.

Yup- simply repeating what Bush thought is a cogent rebuttal to criticism of what he thought.

[Axis Kast]

To Bush. So what?

He's the man this country elected to make the tough decisions, Vympel. We invested him with the power to pronounce upon and act upon what he considered our national security interests.

Brought to him from people like Chalabi and his INC, right?

Red herring. Chalabi and the INC were two sources only; how conveniently you forget that many damning assessments of Iraq's potential stockpiles were also brought to us by sources as divierse as France, Israel, and the United Kingdom.

Not to mention that Chalabi was as much the CIA's mistake as the President's, who was left only to act upon what was coming in to him at the time.

Yup- simply repeating what Bush thought is a cogent rebuttal to criticism of what he thought.

And again you use 20/20 hindsight to insist that he made unjustifiable decisions.

Of course, you blisfully ignore the fact that all the warning signs to the point of Blix' arrival in Iraq suggested that Saddam was lying and was armed. Blix' finding relatively little was unremarkable to us; we expected as much. And, frankly, with the track record on Iraq in mind, it's easy to see why.

[Sea Skimmer]

Perhaps he's just seen some figures on how many resources and fighters are being drawn away from the Chechen war and into Iraq and wishes to see it keep going.

[Sarevok]

Putin may be trying to change sides. He used to oppose the Iraq war. Now that the war is over he probobly wants to mend ties with the US goverment and become friendly with the new Iraqi regime.

[Vympel]

He's the man this country elected to make the tough decisions, Vympel. We invested him with the power to pronounce upon and act upon what he considered our national security interests.

All you're doing is saying he could do it so he did it ... therefore ... what? Whether he had the power to do so is not the fucking issue, this isn't bloody constitutional law.

Red herring.

Learn the damn meaning of the phrase red herring before you try to use it. It is *not* irrelevant.

Chalabi and the INC were two sources only; how conveniently you forget that many damning assessments of Iraq's potential stockpiles were also brought to us by sources as divierse as France

And what was the "damning assessment" provided by France? Or is this yet another vague, no evidence assertion?

Israel

And what was the "damning assessment" provided by Israel? Or is this yet another vague, no evidence assertion?

and the United Kingdom.

Ah yes, the UK, with it's plagiarised, firmed up university term paper passed off as "the latest intelligence", its WMD ready in 45 minutes claim, and all that other bollocks.

The intelligence was nowhere *near* unanimous, and your appeals to popularity aside, there was significant dissenting intelligence that was ignored, not to mention that bad intelligence pre-war, not just post war, was assaulted publically.

For fuck's sake, Colin Powell got up and (finally) admitted his entire UN speech was pretty much crap.

Not to mention that Chalabi was as much the CIA's mistake as the President's, who was left only to act upon what was coming in to him at the time.

The CIA? The CIA hated the INC. Try the (EDIT: Pentagon) Office of Special Plans (since renamed).

And again you use 20/20 hindsight to insist that he made unjustifiable decisions.

20/20 hindsight my arse- the intelligence was at serious issue before the war, not just after.

Of course, you blisfully ignore the fact that all the warning signs to the point of Blix' arrival in Iraq suggested that Saddam was lying and was armed.

"All the warning signs?" Like what?

Blix' finding relatively little was unremarkable to us; we expected as much.

Yup- simply repeating what Bush thought (or what you think he thought) is a cogent rebuttal to criticism of what he thought.

And, frankly, with the track record on Iraq in mind, it's easy to see why.

Sure, why look at the evidence when you can just go with your gut feelings and general dislike instead! There's gold up in them there hills!

[Aaron]

He's the man this country elected to make the tough decisions, Vympel. We invested him with the power to pronounce upon and act upon what he considered our national security interests.

Actually he wasn't elected. He was apointed by a Republican dominated Supreme Court. Therefore the people did not invest him with any power, his buddies did. Just because you blindly follow Bush Jr. doesn't mean that the rest of the USA or the world does.

[Galvatron]

Something tells me Putin's playing ball for a rea$on...

Russia to Consider Iraqi Debt as Paris Club Member

[Joe]

Actually he wasn't elected. He was apointed by a Republican dominated Supreme Court. Therefore the people did not invest him with any power, his buddies did. Just because you blindly follow Bush Jr. doesn't mean that the rest of the USA or the world does.

Don't blame Bush for being "appointed" by the Supreme Court, if Al Gore hadn't pulled every legal trick in the book to try and steal the Presidency it wouldn't have been decided there.

[Aaron]

Don't blame Bush for being "appointed" by the Supreme Court, if Al Gore hadn't pulled every legal trick in the book to try and steal the Presidency it wouldn't have been decided there.

Actually I blame both of them. If there had been a bit more of a difference in their platforms than it may not have been so close that it had to be decided in a court.

[MKSheppard]

Perhaps he's just seen some figures on how many resources and fighters are being drawn away from the Chechen war and into Iraq and wishes to see it keep going.

Good point, and unlike there, it's kinda hard to hide in a flat featureless
desert, so the loss ratio is in our favor.

[Hamel]

Actually he wasn't elected. He was apointed by a Republican dominated Supreme Court. Therefore the people did not invest him with any power, his buddies did. Just because you blindly follow Bush Jr. doesn't mean that the rest of the USA or the world does.

Don't blame Bush for being "appointed" by the Supreme Court, if Al Gore hadn't pulled every legal trick in the book to try and steal the Presidency it wouldn't have been decided there.

Bullshit. Gore wasn't so desperate that he had democratic operatives riot to shut down a recount.

[Axis Kast]

Vympel, it is the president’s responsibility to assess and then challenge threats. After September 11th, that job became even more difficult than it had already been; if a nation such as Afghanistan could become a major player in international terrorism merely by looking the other way, that meant virtually any nation on Earth could pose mortal danger to the United States with much fewer resources and much less true military credibility than previously thought possible.

George Bush approached the problem as somebody who had to deal with the potential for a worst-case scenario. Dissenting intelligence there was plenty of, but even up to the time that Blix was on the ground in Iraq, countries such as France and Germany were acknowledging that, in their opinion, Saddam was probably armed. Washington then decided that Blix was unlikely to give them a full picture anyway; after all, Iraq was infamous for its deception, and Blix’s freedom of action was constrained – if not by Saddam’s regime itself, then by the sheer scope of the task at hand. The only choice left was to mount the invasion.

[Vympel]

Fine, you know exactly what I would normally say, since we've been around this circle before, we'll just leave it alone.

[Plekhanov]

Vympel, it is the president’s responsibility to assess and then challenge threats.

Absolutely it is the President’s duty to assess threats and judge how to respond to them, a duty he performed very poorly (and not just in hindsight, many called Iraq correctly before the war) in relation to Iraq, this is exactly why he is coming in for so much critiscism.

After September 11th, that job became even more difficult than it had already been; if a nation such as Afghanistan could become a major player in international terrorism merely by looking the other way,

Yes 9/11 justifies everything

that meant virtually any nation on Earth could pose mortal danger to the United States with much fewer resources and much less true military credibility than previously thought possible.

When you say “virtually any nation on Earth could pose mortal danger to the United States” do you seriously mean that you think practically any nation could pose a serious threat to the survival of the US? Which is the literal meaning of what you wrote or are you just so used to lapping up the bullshit alarmist rhetoric of Bush and his Neo-Con chums that you are now spouting it yourself without realising what you’re saying.

George Bush approached the problem as somebody who had to deal with the potential for a worst-case scenario.

And definitely not as somebody with an agenda which involved invading Iraq and toppling Saddam

Dissenting intelligence there was plenty of, but even up to the time that Blix was on the ground in Iraq, countries such as France and Germany were acknowledging that, in their opinion, Saddam was probably armed. Washington then decided that Blix was unlikely to give them a full picture anyway; after all, Iraq was infamous for its deception, and Blix’s freedom of action was constrained – if not by Saddam’s regime itself, then by the sheer scope of the task at hand. The only choice left was to mount the invasion.

Even if all your bullshit assertions of France and Germany’s security assessments’ were right, why didn’t France, Germany and Russia (yes and that means your new best friend Mr Putin) then agree that “The only choice left was to mount the invasion”?

Invasion was never “the only choice” it was simply the only thing on GW’s mind.