Russia Advised Bush About Saddam Terror Plots Against America

[12th Doctor]

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'

Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 12:46 PM EDT (1646 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.

"This information was indeed passed on through our partner channels to our American colleagues and, moreover, President Bush had an opportunity and used this opportunity to personally thank the leader of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he considered to be very important," Putin said.

Putin made his comments in response to a question from reporters seeking clarification on similar statements leaked by an unnamed intelligence officer in a dispatch by the Interfax news agency.

Russia opposed the invasion of Iraq and Putin said Friday the information did not effect its stance on the war.

He said there were international norms and procedures that weren't observed regarding "the use of force in international actions."

Regarding how the information might have been related to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Putin said, "Whether or not this was sufficient basis to state the United States was acting within the boundaries of self-defense, well, I don't know. This is a separate issue."

The United States, meanwhile, never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.

Hours after Putin spoke, Bush addressed troops at Fort Lewis in the U.S. state of Washington, but he didn't react to the Russian leader's remarks.

He repeated his position that Saddam's regime was a threat to the world and that dangers it posed were the grounds for the invasion last year.

"This is a regime which gave cash rewards to families of suicide bombers. This is a regime that sheltered terrorist groups," Bush said.

He also cited Musab Abu al-Zarqawi, the wanted insurgent in Iraq suspected of many terrorist bombings in Iraq, as an "al Qaeda associate."

Asked about Putin's remarks, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We don't typically comment on intelligence matters. We do have an excellent record of cooperation in the war on terror with the Russian government. And a big part of the cooperation is information and intelligence sharing."

Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The panel also found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers.

Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, have strongly disputed suggestions that the commission's conclusions contradict statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam's regime. He said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." (Full story)

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday.

The president said that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"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," Bush said. (Full story)

In the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In a October 2002 speech he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."

The report also said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

[CARLHAYDEN]

Everyone should check their local newspaper and see if they covered this report.

If not (which will probably be the in most cases), they should contact that newspaper (or fish-wrapper) and ask they pointedly why they chose not to print this story.

The liberal media has been denying this for too long!

[MarkDel]

You guys just don't understand at all...

This evidence won't be enough for the Democrats...

No evidence will be enough for the Democrats...

We could find videotape of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cuddling in bed as they discuss their plans for the attacks of 9/11 and that STILL wouldn't make a dent in the Democrat opinion on this matter...

This has nothing to do with reality...

This has nothing to do with the truth...

This has nothing to do with national security...

This is all about Democrats winning back political power "by any means necessary"

[Alfie]

You guys just don't understand at all...

This evidence won't be enough for the Democrats...

No evidence will be enough for the Democrats...

We could find videotape of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cuddling in bed as they discuss their plans for the attacks of 9/11 and that STILL wouldn't make a dent in the Democrat opinion on this matter...

This has nothing to do with reality...

This has nothing to do with the truth...

This has nothing to do with national security...

This is all about Democrats winning back political power "by any means necessary"

Gee.  So Putin, a Godless communist, knows more about the situation than the "9/11" committee.  Wow!  

[MarkDel]

Alfie,

What a truly genuis response on your part...you must be quite proud of your considerable intellect.

[Alfie]

Alfie,

What a truly genuis response on your part...you must be quite proud of your considerable intellect.

But... but...[/red] it meets all of your posting standards:


"This has nothing to do with reality...

This has nothing to do with the truth...

This has nothing to do with national security...

This is all about Democrats winning back political power"


- Alfie

[??????????]

MarkDel, don't waste your time with that troll. He ain't worth it.

[dazzleman]

You guys just don't understand at all...

This evidence won't be enough for the Democrats...

No evidence will be enough for the Democrats...

We could find videotape of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cuddling in bed as they discuss their plans for the attacks of 9/11 and that STILL wouldn't make a dent in the Democrat opinion on this matter...

This has nothing to do with reality...

This has nothing to do with the truth...

This has nothing to do with national security...

This is all about Democrats winning back political power "by any means necessary"

Man, you are so right.  The level of "evidence" required by the Democrats in the terror war is about the same as what the OJ jury would have required to convict him - in other words, unattainable.  Liberal Democrats seem always willing to give the benefit of any doubt to those who wish to attack us rather than to those trying their best to protect us.

Of course, the same liberals who think we don't have the "evidence" to actually do anything about the threat from the Islamofascists will be the first ones asking why nothing was done about the threat after a chemical or nuclear attack.  Just as they place full blame on the new Bush administration for the Sept. 11th attacks while absolving the previous administration, which squandered 8 years doing nothing about the threat and limiting our intelligence capabilities because we wouldn't want to violate the civil rights of murderous alien terrorists.

[Alfie]

You guys just don't understand at all...

This evidence won't be enough for the Democrats...

No evidence will be enough for the Democrats...

We could find videotape of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cuddling in bed as they discuss their plans for the attacks of 9/11 and that STILL wouldn't make a dent in the Democrat opinion on this matter...

This has nothing to do with reality...

This has nothing to do with the truth...

This has nothing to do with national security...

This is all about Democrats winning back political power "by any means necessary"

Man, you are so right.  The level of "evidence" required by the Democrats in the terror war is about the same as what the OJ jury would have required to convict him - in other words, unattainable.  Liberal Democrats seem always willing to give the benefit of any doubt to those who wish to attack us rather than to those trying their best to protect us.

Of course, the same liberals who think we don't have the "evidence" to actually do anything about the threat from the Islamofascists will be the first ones asking why nothing was done about the threat after a chemical or nuclear attack.  Just as they place full blame on the new Bush administration for the Sept. 11th attacks while absolving the previous administration, which squandered 8 years doing nothing about the threat and limiting our intelligence capabilities because we wouldn't want to violate the civil rights of murderous alien terrorists.

I'd be happy if Bush would simply get his story straight.

Why did he invade Iraq?  Was it WMD which were there, but aren't there, and we don't know -- or care -- where they went.

But correct me if I'm wrong.  Is this about the "size" of Bush's excuses -- I mean REASONS -- for invading Iraq?


WHY BUSH INVADED IRAQ, By ALFIE


"Bush invaded Iraq as a part of the war on terror, which doesn't make sense because the government of Iraq had zero to do with the attack on America, Ha!  LIE-BERALS!  Except that perhaps maybe coulda woulds mighta WOO-WOOOOOOOO! [/green] Saddam evil dictator regime is no more hates our freedoms because the evil dictator used WMD which ("hey Karl, you got anymore toot hanging around?" America provided against his own people like we give a $hit and against his neighbors which we encouraged.  Then Clinton zipper OH MONICA! Evildoers are no more Mission Accomplished 621 dead but that's good no that's bad except Hello, UN?  However; having said that...

We have liberatred the people of Iraq who hate us because of our freedoms why we even Abu Ghraib rebuild tear down new prison not torture thumbs up (up where?) few bad apples not government policy we will defend mushroom clouds but Clinton said but Ollie North said but they will welcome us as liberators BANG BANG hello, UN?"


Did I get it right?


Now what could make more sense of Bush's policy than THAT?


- Alfie
So Glad I Get  MY NEWS from FoxHenHouse Snooze!

[CARLHAYDEN]

You guys just don't understand at all...

This evidence won't be enough for the Democrats...

No evidence will be enough for the Democrats...

We could find videotape of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cuddling in bed as they discuss their plans for the attacks of 9/11 and that STILL wouldn't make a dent in the Democrat opinion on this matter...

This has nothing to do with reality...

This has nothing to do with the truth...

This has nothing to do with national security...

This is all about Democrats winning back political power "by any means necessary"

Man, you are so right.  The level of "evidence" required by the Democrats in the terror war is about the same as what the OJ jury would have required to convict him - in other words, unattainable.  Liberal Democrats seem always willing to give the benefit of any doubt to those who wish to attack us rather than to those trying their best to protect us.

Of course, the same liberals who think we don't have the "evidence" to actually do anything about the threat from the Islamofascists will be the first ones asking why nothing was done about the threat after a chemical or nuclear attack.  Just as they place full blame on the new Bush administration for the Sept. 11th attacks while absolving the previous administration, which squandered 8 years doing nothing about the threat and limiting our intelligence capabilities because we wouldn't want to violate the civil rights of murderous alien terrorists.

I'd be happy if Bush would simply get his story straight.

Why did he invade Iraq?  Was it WMD which were there, but aren't there, and we don't know -- or care -- where they went.

But correct me if I'm wrong.  Is this about the "size" of Bush's excuses -- I mean REASONS -- for invading Iraq?


WHY BUSH INVADED IRAQ, By ALFIE


"Bush invaded Iraq as a part of the war on terror, which doesn't make sense because the government of Iraq had zero to do with the attack on America, Ha!  LIE-BERALS!  Except that perhaps maybe coulda woulds mighta WOO-WOOOOOOOO! [/green] Saddam evil dictator regime is no more hates our freedoms because the evil dictator used WMD which ("hey Karl, you got anymore toot hanging around?" America provided against his own people like we give a $hit and against his neighbors which we encouraged.  Then Clinton zipper OH MONICA! Evildoers are no more Mission Accomplished 621 dead but that's good no that's bad except Hello, UN?  However; having said that...

We have liberatred the people of Iraq who hate us because of our freedoms why we even Abu Ghraib rebuild tear down new prison not torture thumbs up (up where?) few bad apples not government policy we will defend mushroom clouds but Clinton said but Ollie North said but they will welcome us as liberators BANG BANG hello, UN?"


Did I get it right?


Now what could make more sense of Bush's policy than THAT?


- Alfie
So Glad I Get  MY NEWS from FoxHenHouse Snooze!

No, you didn't get anything right.

First of all, small quantities of WMDs have been discovered.  Admittedly the liberal press has tried to bury the news, but the truth is that a chemical shell from Saddam's arsenal was used about a month ago, about a week ago rocket engines from Iraq
that had been smuggled into Jordan were found, about three months ago Danish troops found small quantities of prohibited chemical agents.

Second, the war by terrorist did not begin with 911 and is not limited to OBL.  Do you know who Mr. Klinghofer was, what happened to him, and where his murderer was fund (Abul Nidal).  Also, Russian intelligence advised the United States before the invasion of Iraqi plots against the United States.

Finally, I realize you have to be incoherent in misrepresenting the war on terroris, because a straight-forward and accurate account would run contrary to your beliefs.

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From Bush's press conference 13 April 04:

Q.  "Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?"

Bush: "The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. [/red] But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein."

source: 13 April 04 prime-time press conference[/b]


What did Bush tell us about WMD prior to invasion?  Did he say, "We might find a can of RAID bug killer, or perhaps Sarin from 1990 or so."  No, Bush was talking Big Time WMD, as in fissionable yellow cake from Africa, aluminum tubes for machinery to construct nuclear weapons, mobile weapons labs, drone planes for spraying chemical and biological weapons over American skies, and mushroom clouds over American cities.

"What else did he say about WMD, Alfie?"[/red]

Thanks, fan club.  Bush has been mighty busy, spinning a Web of lies.  For example:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

What became of all that, Mark?  500 tons!  That's about a million pounds of evidence!

Scummy Rummy said:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."
- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

One would think these weapons, their location neatly triangulated, would have been quickly found -- after all, Rummy said, "WE KNOW."  He didn't say WE THINK, he didn't say "WE GUESS" -- he said "WE KNOW"  

So where are they?

Face it, chump, you've been had.


- Alfie

[CARLHAYDEN]

Either you haven't kept up with the news, or are deliberately omitting pertinent information.

First, since the date of the Bush quotes you cited, WMDs have been found in small quantities.

Second, when larger quantities of WMDs are found, will you admit you were wrong?