Putin Says Russia Warned U.S. on Saddam

[Island Dog]

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin, in comments sure to help President Bush, declared Friday that Russia knew Iraq's Saddam Hussein had planned terror attacks on U.S. soil and had warned Washington.

Putin said Russian intelligence had been told on several occasions that Saddam's special forces were preparing to attack U.S. targets inside and outside the United States.

"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing 'terrorist acts' on the United States and beyond its borders," he told reporters.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5457972

[hoyablue]

We all know we can trust Putin.

[Island Dog]

We all know we can trust Putin.

If the headline was......"Putin told U.S. that Saddam was not a threat"......I'm sure he would be trusted by you people.

[hoyablue]

If the headline was......"Putin told U.S. that Saddam was not a threat"......I'm sure he would be trusted by you people.

You're sure?

We have a psychic on this board, people!

[Dave Veteran]

You're sure?

We have a psychic on this board, people!

While I agree Putin is an ex-KGB butcher who is not to be trusted.

deepisland is probably right.

[Island Dog]

I'm pretty sure.

[hoyablue]

By the way, I did a research paper on how Putin controls the education system thus not allowing students to embrace a democracy upon graduation. This prevents democratization from progressing in Russia. The research paper also discussed various stigmatic areas in which Putin cannot be trusted such as the structure of Russa's government.

Did you know that Putin has to be impeached twice in order to be kicked out as President?

But wait, everybody, trust Putin!

I would never trust Putin even if he did take my side. Bad prediction on your part, Deepisland.

[Island Dog]

By the way, I did a research paper on how Putin controls the education system thus not allowing students to embrace a democracy upon graduation. This prevents democratization from progressing in Russia. The research paper also discussed various stigmatic areas in which Putin cannot be trusted such as the structure of Russa's government.

Good for you. But once again, if the story was reversed, you would be agreeing wtih it.

[Island Dog]

I would never trust Putin even if he did take my side. Bad prediction on your part, Deepisland.

Fair enough, but I will change "you" to "people".

[threetonesun]

Good for you. But once again, if the story was reversed, you would be agreeing wtih it.

Uh, yeah. If the story were reversed, it would be true.

[nemo]

Uh, yeah. If the story were reversed, it would be true.

oh please, if there was any information that proved Bush wrong in anyway, (ie: moore's new movie (because he's real credible)) you all jump all over it and use it against bush-supporters.

[b3n]

oh please, if there was any information that proved Bush wrong in anyway, (ie: moore's new movie (because he's real credible)) you all jump all over it and use it against bush-supporters.

im going to draw your attention to the vital word in your post

proved

yes if it proved him to be wrong im sure i would use it as evidence

;) :rolleyes:

[nemo]

im going to draw your attention to the vital word in your post

proved

yes if it proved him to be wrong im sure i would use it as evidence

;) :rolleyes:

okay i'm sorry.... replace "proved" with "inferred" or something of the sort.

and you know damn well you would jump all over it.

[Joel]

Interesting. If true, what exactly would he have done? And with what?

[Dave Veteran]

Wow this thread is just full of back-peddling.

[Island Dog]

Wow this thread is just full of back-peddling.

That shouldn't be surprising.

[threetonesun]

oh please, if there was any information that proved Bush wrong in anyway, (ie: moore's new movie (because he's real credible)) you all jump all over it and use it against bush-supporters.

What? There's more stories in the news every single day about how wrong Bush was. And hell, the very fact that we have gotten nothing out of Iraq (WMD? Al Queda?) should be proof enough that he was clearly wrong about Iraq's importance.

[Island Dog]

What? There's more stories in the news every single day about how wrong Bush was. And hell, the very fact that we have gotten nothing out of Iraq (WMD? Al Queda?) should be proof enough that he was clearly wrong about Iraq's importance.

And there is just as many that shows Bush was right. The problem is nobody wants to acknowledge those.

As far as WMD's. We have found some, and we have found evidence that Saddam was destroying or hiding them. As far as al qaeda, there are many links with them....number one being al zawaqari.

[b3n]

And there is just as many that shows Bush was right. The problem is nobody wants to acknowledge those.

As far as WMD's. We have found some, and we have found evidence that Saddam was destroying or hiding them. As far as al qaeda, there are many links with them....number one being al zawaqari.

i do not ignore the evidence

i meerly feel that one sarin shell and a couple of engines in a scrap yard do not ammount to an threat deployable within 45 minuites

[Island Dog]

i do not ignore the evidence

i meerly feel that one sarin shell and a couple of engines in a scrap yard do not ammount to an threat deployable within 45 minuites

A deployable threat within 45 doesn't make a differnce if it's WMD's or not. One shell could kill thousands of people.

You do realize, don't you, that American forces in Iraq haven't been looking for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction for as long as Hillary Clinton looked for her "missing" Rose Law Firm billing records.

[Black Hawk]

Um didn't you guys say that Bush couldn't do anything when he was warned about 9/11? Cause he didn't know where, when or some bs. What's the difference now?

[b3n]

A deployable threat within 45 doesn't make a differnce if it's WMD's or not. One shell could kill thousands of people.

so what happened to imediate threat

which is the only time a country can invade another without un security council aprovel

under the UN charter

[nemo]

i do not ignore the evidence

i meerly feel that one sarin shell and a couple of engines in a scrap yard do not ammount to an threat deployable within 45 minuites

whether you find it a threat or not, they were WMD.

whether it was one or 3408223, there were WMD.

The UN found out that Saddam was shipping components out of the country before during and after the war. source

But Saddam complied with everything and never had any WMD.... right?

[Island Dog]

so what happened to imediate threat

which is the only time a country can invade another without un security council aprovel

under the UN charter

Saddam passing sarin gas to a terrorist is an immediate threat to me.

The U.N.'s own resolutions permitted the use of force againt Iraq.

[threetonesun]

whether you find it a threat or not, they were WMD.

whether it was one or 3408223, there were WMD.

The UN found out that Saddam was shipping components out of the country before during and after the war. source

But Saddam complied with everything and never had any WMD.... right?

Look, if you're going to go the route that Saddam really was a viable threat, then why the hell aren't we doing anything about North Korea? Not only are they a longer standing enemy with the US, they're a much larger and closer threat.