Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 06/18/2004 View Thu 06/17/2004 View Wed 06/16/2004 View Tue 06/15/2004 View Mon 06/14/2004 View Sun 06/13/2004 View Sat 06/12/2004
1
2004-06-18 Russia
Moscow warned U.S. about Iraqi terror plans
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Lux 2004-06-18 08:50|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 repeatedly warned the US that Saddam was planning attacks on the US. Jeebus! How big a hack commission would they have to constitute if we ignored these warnings and still got attacked? Ted Kennedy would accuse Bushitler of lying, wouldn't he?
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-18 9:46:37 AM||   2004-06-18 9:46:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 immediate reaction from left - Putin says Iraq didnt participate in actual attacks, so its all hot air. Havent seem them saying Bush bribed Putin to get this, but i expect that soon.

I agree though - this is HUGE. Cant wait to see details - if intel security allows for that.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-18 10:05:16 AM||   2004-06-18 10:05:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 So let's see, the Russians knew about this but opposed the war anyway. Two things: a) the Russian relationship with Saddam's Iraq must have been extremely lucrative (same with France & Germany) or, b) Putin & Bush are closer friends than we all realize.
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-18 10:14:18 AM||   2004-06-18 10:14:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Beeb still ignporing this. Theyre probably trying to figure out how to spin it. The more I think about it, the huger this seems. How can anyone fault Bush for going to war after this? Who cares about WMD now? Expect this to be THE big story for quite some time. The left can attack Putin and the evidence, but its too big to simply ignore. This aint Steven Hayes, or Laura Myljoie, or some blogger, or even Dick Cheney. This is Vlad goddamned Putin.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-18 10:15:58 AM||   2004-06-18 10:15:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 oh, putin will say that he opposed the war anyway cause he thought allowing post-saddam chaos was a bigger risk than any attacks the Iraqis could pull off. Thats an easy one. It doesnt change that this means Bush had a solid Casus Belli, and a justification that flies well at home.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-18 10:17:34 AM||   2004-06-18 10:17:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Agree this is huge, huge, huge. A very definitive casus belli. Media will try to ignore it.
Posted by virginian 2004-06-18 10:30:07 AM||   2004-06-18 10:30:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I agree with virginian, it is huge and the media will intensify their reporting of Abu Grabes.
Posted by rabidfox 2004-06-18 10:36:30 AM||   2004-06-18 10:36:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 This could be huge, if mass media were remotely serious, competent, or intelligent. Who knows, it may barge into the discussion somehow, we'll see.

But while it's important and will be available to buttress the case for pre-emption, it certainly doesn't burnish Russia's rep very much. To have info that a rogue state planned terror attacks on the US, and STILL oppose vigorous action against that state? Sure there's nuance and detail that could be explored -- best way of dealing with threat, war vs. other means, blah blah blah -- but quite reasonably, to the average intelligent person, it looks pretty outrageous of Russia to know what it did and still act as it did.
Posted by Verlaine 2004-06-18 10:45:05 AM||   2004-06-18 10:45:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 AP and Reuters have it, CNN is featuring it prominently. NYT and the leftist press in UK and Europe will try to bury it, but the "swing" press - WaPo, CNN, etc will run with it.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-18 10:51:34 AM||   2004-06-18 10:51:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 This story will be gone in two days, and the press will be back to 24/7 Abu Ghraib.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-06-18 10:55:39 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com]  2004-06-18 10:55:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Beware the Abu Ghraib and Laci Peterson media onslaught. And pull the Michael Jackson corpse back up for another freak show. As if the American public couldn't already change the channel fast enough!

Media's digging their own graves as everyone buys their favorite shows on CD and turns to alternative sources for "news".

Posted by Anonymous5254 2004-06-18 11:27:41 AM||   2004-06-18 11:27:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Ha! Told ya! When it comes to survival, the Russian's in charge aren't self-destructive like the useful idiots they use and discard.

Just like WWII, it's in Russia's own self-interest to stop nihilistic Islam in its tracks. Dem's parade of fools scares everyone who isn't stuck in 60's adolescent denial.
Posted by B 2004-06-18 11:34:50 AM||   2004-06-18 11:34:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#13  Laci Peterson case - Why isn't this just another one of a zillion murder cases? What is so special about it? Even as a who-dun-it it sucks!

Why not focus on a case like the recent one in Columbia Mo. ...
Gay student activist found dead in locked apt. with a sliced throat. No body movement. No signs of struggle. No prints. No signs of sex. Boy friend a cop who arrested him a few months before. Cop appears to be clean. Oh -- the sliced throat appeared to be professionaly done... not the sloppy stuff like the terrorist do.
Isn't that a better who-dun-it than Lacy?
So .... Why Lacy? What does it tie into? What's the angle? Death of a fetus for Ashcroft or what?
She somebody special relative or girlfriend?
She know somebody she shouldn't have?
Stumble on to something?
I don't get it.
Posted by 3dc 2004-06-18 11:40:47 AM||   2004-06-18 11:40:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 B-I hope you're right with all my heart. I just have a feeling Putin's announcement is going to take a few twists and turns. Beyond self-interest, his motivation for spilling is unknown, wouldn't ya say Rantburgians?
Posted by jules 187 2004-06-18 11:42:32 AM||   2004-06-18 11:42:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 3dc - bread and circuses, Gotta fill the Colliseum airtime with something other than UNSCAM and Sudan.
Posted by B 2004-06-18 11:50:19 AM||   2004-06-18 11:50:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 3Dc,
What is to figure out? Pretty white girl, pregnant, husband who looks like he could be any suburban neighbor, Blonde girlfriend who can be portrayed as either a skank or a vulnerable single mom, bodies washing up on shore in a media state with 10% of the population... and you can't figure out WHY the media is pushing this one out to the front? It turns on TV's.
And back on topic, I think Putin and GW have a good private relationship with synergy possible when the politics don't get in the way.
Posted by Capsu78 2004-06-18 11:52:50 AM||   2004-06-18 11:52:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 jules - Putin's announcement is going to take a few twists and turns

You may be right, but it pays to note that the Russians have more to fear from a China assisted nuclear Iran than they ever will from us.
Posted by B 2004-06-18 11:53:44 AM||   2004-06-18 11:53:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 why didn't Bush or Cheney or Rummy or, etc. ever mention this before????
Posted by mhw 2004-06-18 11:54:51 AM||   2004-06-18 11:54:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Capsu79 - are you saying you actually tune in for that - or are you just speaking for "the masses" benath you?
Posted by B 2004-06-18 11:54:58 AM||   2004-06-18 11:54:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 mhw, my guess is that they were not at liberty to discuss intelligence provided confidentially by a foreign government without its permission. I concur with everyone that this is monumentally huge. Consider this: you are president, your country has been subject to a devestating terrorist attack. The president of another country with extremely sophisticated intelligence informs you that an enemy with whom you are still engaging in low level hostilities plans to conduct terrorist attacks against your country. What do you do? I'm hoping the blogosphere helps create the pressure and shame that will force this story to the surface.
Posted by Sludj 2004-06-18 12:04:44 PM||   2004-06-18 12:04:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Not huge. Just Puty showing how skerry he fears things could get. I don't like furriners in our politics whether they're helping my guy or the other.
Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-06-18 12:13:01 PM||   2004-06-18 12:13:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Nothing on New York Times yet... but there is an article on a beating death at Afghan detention facility. Hey did you guys know about that?
Posted by JackAssFestival 2004-06-18 12:16:29 PM||   2004-06-18 12:16:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 B,
I got Tivo.
I don't have to suffer media fools anymore. My thumb starts twiching the second I see Scotts big floating head appear.
Posted by Capsu78 2004-06-18 12:16:35 PM||   2004-06-18 12:16:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 By the way, 2 points to consider. Is there a meeting between Bush and Putin soon? Something like this could be a trump card for Putin or a "please consider russian companies for reconstruction contracts" move.
Second, predict Putin to back off on the statement and the press splashes it on Page 1.
Posted by JackAssFestival 2004-06-18 12:19:18 PM||   2004-06-18 12:19:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Capsu - couldn't imagine you being interested. Ahhh..tivo...maybe I should look into that.

Sludj...interesting point.
Posted by B 2004-06-18 1:05:33 PM||   2004-06-18 1:05:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 latest spin

Putin is lying cause
A. Hes sucking up to Bush cause Bush says nothing bad about Russian misdeeds in Chechnya. (nothing about Georgia, NATO expansion, etc)
B. Hes been bought

Or
Putin gave us bad info pre-war:
To suck us into the Iraq quagmire (variant on the already popular Iran tricked us into Iraq meme)

ladies and gentlemen, work on your responses.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-18 1:10:07 PM||   2004-06-18 1:10:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 new spin - Well, the US has plans to invade lots of countries, so whats it matter.

Responses - 1. Putin said preparing, not just planning.
2. Iraq cant attack the US conventionally, so this means a terrorist act.

They are getting desperate.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-18 1:31:58 PM||   2004-06-18 1:31:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 LiberalHawk : I vote A. - - - -
Silence on the Qadas in Chechnya is golden.
I hear about stuff in Chechnya from my Russian wife. She still talks to friends in Moscow who have relatives in the Army. Sounds a lot like the current incidents we are facing in Iraq.

Also, most "misdeeds" reported by the media are not "misdeeds".
Posted by BigEd 2004-06-18 1:32:48 PM||   2004-06-18 1:32:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 #4 Beeb still ignoring this. Liberalhawk, Beeb's got it now.

He [Putin] 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."

What in hell kind of hair-splitting is that? "Not involved" but "preparing acts of terorism." Who gives a flying f%&k if Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11. If they were planning more of the same, then into the crosshairs they go!

This sort of mincing is rather unusual for the Russians. Quite obviously, their relationship with Iraq was so lucrative they just couldn't back away from Saddam's teat. It calls into question why we should feel very sympathetic about Russia's current difficulties in Chechnya.

You can't have it both ways, Putin. Either you fight it or you profit from it, but not both.
Posted by Zenster 2004-06-18 1:38:21 PM||   2004-06-18 1:38:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Liberhawk> Predictably enough I'll be going with the latter option ("gave you info in order to suck you into the war") as the one I consider most probable.

Putin gave the US such info (whether it was good info or bad info, that's a sidepoint really) in order to have US attack Iraq and in the process hurt itself.

And then it opposed the war on Iraq, because opposition to the war would be good for Russia -- not to mention that the more countries opposed the war the more US would be hurt on the diplomatic/political level, loss of soft power and etc.

Because if Russia *didn't* want USA to attack Iraq, why did it give such info to a president that was already itching for a reason to invade it?
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-18 1:40:44 PM||   2004-06-18 1:40:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 aris - er cause if Iraq HAD attacked the US, and it later came out that theyd sat on such info, the shit would have REALLY hit the fan in US-Russian relations. This of course assumes it was good info - or at least the Russians thought it was.

In any case, the material harm to the US is negligible in the scheme of things - the big harm, as everyone has been saying here for months - is to our soft power, to our relationships, to our hearts and minds campaign. But if Putin has just given evidence that our war WAS IN FACT a war of SELF-DEFENSE, he has just set the stage for reversing a very large part of that damage.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-18 1:48:28 PM||   2004-06-18 1:48:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 After we got hold of 1/2 mile or so of Iraq intel and other documents, from both within Iraq and outside Iraq in embassies/consulates etc., and likely thence got the goods on a lot of international bastards, it is no surprize that international opposition has piped down. (Remember Jim Baker's trip?) And beyond that we've seen almost muted and/or tacit approval abroad when compared to the sounds from abroad of 12-16 months ago. Or is it just me?
Posted by Rawsnacks 2004-06-18 1:52:37 PM||   2004-06-18 1:52:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Aris wrote: "Putin gave the US such info (whether it was good info or bad info, that's a sidepoint really) in order to have US attack Iraq and in the process hurt itself.

"And then it opposed the war on Iraq, because opposition to the war would be good for Russia -- not to mention that the more countries opposed the war the more US would be hurt on the diplomatic/political level, loss of soft power and etc."

If that's the case, what good does it do Putin now to release the information? Does it swing him back onto the US side (that's probably a good thing)?

I would bet that it has more to do with wanting to cooperate with the US in Central Asia (Chechnya especially) and against China (which is probably in bed with Iran and the Norks over nuke proliferation).
Posted by Tibor 2004-06-18 1:57:30 PM||   2004-06-18 1:57:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Liberalhawk> That's possible I guess, but frankly I think it would have done lots more good had he offered such info last year. With the exception of us politics fanatics I think that hardly anyone cares anymore about the moral justifications of the war on Iraq.

They cared back when it was starting, not now. I think all the damage has been done.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-06-18 2:02:10 PM||   2004-06-18 2:02:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 With the exception of us politics fanatics I think that hardly anyone cares anymore about the moral justifications of the war on Iraq

well its still a huge issue here in the US. My sense is that its a big issue for Blair and Howard, with election campaigns coming up.


I presume its still an issue in the Islamic world.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-18 2:14:36 PM||   2004-06-18 2:14:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Putin must be wishing for a Bush victory in November. But why? What's in it for him? Russia has in fact about $1 bil in contracts in Iraq right now, with things probably poised to pick up even further. If Kerry wins, and pulls out of Iraq, and if the crap there really hits the fan, then Russia stands to lose. Remember, Putin doesn't care how many US soldiers die on a daily basis (or how many Russians for that matter), as long as there's relative calm. Same scenario in Chechnya. My guess is, someone has lobbied Putin in Moscow to support Bush.
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-18 2:16:58 PM||   2004-06-18 2:16:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 anyone else remember the old joke about the most shocking possible newspaper headline? "Franz Ferdinand found alive, World War fought by mistake". This could be the opposite.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-18 2:19:35 PM||   2004-06-18 2:19:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Roger L. Simon:

"UPDATE: An irony just occurred to me. If I am correct (yes, big if) and Putin is beginning to reward Bush for his "discretion" regarding Oil-for-Food, etc., the mainstream media, by soft-pedaling the same villainy, have been the administration's completely inadvertent allies. Oh, how the head spins in the game of realpolitik!"

Interesting speculation.
Posted by Evert V. in NL  2004-06-18 2:41:39 PM|| [http://srv.fotopages.com/?o=935389&t=2]  2004-06-18 2:41:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Rafael: My guess is that Putin isn't stupid :-)
Posted by B 2004-06-18 2:42:18 PM||   2004-06-18 2:42:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Everet, that's an interesting idea, and I'd enjoy the irony if it were true, but I just don't see it.
Posted by B 2004-06-18 2:46:25 PM||   2004-06-18 2:46:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Baker's briefcase is a Pandora's Box for the other side. A public opening would be horrible. Maybe Putin got a private peek at the contents recently.
Posted by Classical_Liberal 2004-06-18 3:04:17 PM||   2004-06-18 3:04:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Putin opposed the war because of Money-for-Saddam payola and because Chirac grabbed him by the short hairs, no I mean the below the waist variety. The Ruskies made the top of the Saddam Honor Roll.
Posted by Capt America 2004-06-18 4:13:42 PM||   2004-06-18 4:13:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Evert is on the right track, but it is not about Oil-for-Food. Nobody really gives a shit about that. Think WMD and those who really opposed us going into Iraq actually helping Saddam spirit them out of the country before the war began. Keeping that quiet is called incentive.
Posted by remote man 2004-06-18 5:33:43 PM||   2004-06-18 5:33:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Could also be a generic threat of withholding aid and support to Russia.

But I do find a lot of the Bush Administration's lack of PR on WMD, UNSCAM, etc. disturbing. This idea from Roger Simon does seem to fit as to WHY the Administration has downplayed the news on wmd, unscam, weapons supply, and possible Russian aide to Iraq in the 90's.

Who knows.
Posted by Anonymous4021 2004-06-18 6:24:07 PM||   2004-06-18 6:24:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 The administration can get a lot more long term effective yield from information we tell the other side we know but keep secret than if we release it to the media. Much better control with no spin potential.
Posted by remote man 2004-06-18 6:43:52 PM||   2004-06-18 6:43:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 #45 The administration can get a lot more long term effective yield from information we tell the other side we know but keep secret than if we release it to the media. Much better control with no spin potential.

So what? A4021's point remains salient as ever. Playing any sort of "spin potential" game merely taints all of your own supportive evidence with the stain of propagandism. Why bother when the truth supports your own position so well?

#44 But I do find a lot of the Bush Administration's lack of PR on WMD, UNSCAM, etc. disturbing.

I agree. Why isn't the truth being milked like the last cow on the farm. Where's the harm?
Posted by Zenster 2004-06-19 1:46:16 AM||   2004-06-19 1:46:16 AM|| Front Page Top

20:11 Frank G
19:25 Anonymous5497
13:43 Sammy Frobisher
09:23 Anonymous5308
19:44 The Doctor
19:37 Sammy Frobisher(AKA Ano.5290)
19:27 Anonymous5305
18:55 Anonymouse
18:22 Anonymous5303
18:04 Anonymouse
22:01 Anonymous5291
16:22 Robert Crawford
15:28 Anonymous5290
08:14 Howard UK
04:52 .com
04:34 Anonymous4617
04:21 .com
04:06 Anonymous4617
03:54 .com
03:21 Anonymous4617
03:12 .com
03:05 Anonymous4617
03:04 .com
02:52 .com









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com