It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bushs Premption was Correct After All

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   
President Putin of Russia has validated President Bush's reason for a premptive war ousting Saddam Hussien of Iraq, Even though Putin at the time did not support the Iraq invasion for domestic reasons the announcment of this information strongly supports the Bush doctrine put in place after 9/11 of premptively removing threats to the United States and its interests by rouge states or terror oganizations.

Putins statement proves everything the Bush administation has been saying all along about Saddam being a threat to the US.

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - 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. . . .

"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.
AP News

This news about Russias intelligence sharing and the realization that the US medias representation of the 9/11 commission report of this week was flat wrong when the reporting contended there was no connection between Al Qaida and Saddam has certainly changed the grim outlook from earlier this week.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by Banshee]




posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
While I would like to believe this, there are a couple things that make me sketchy about this article:



Putin said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war.



Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al-Qaida terror network.


It just seems like the ramblings once again of a world leader without showing the public intelligence reports. Even if there were I know we've had false intelligence in the past, and there is no reason the Russians wouldn't have false intelligence either.
I just remain skeptical of the fact, he is trying to reiterate Bush's stance without saying why. While I would like to believe this, I'm not going to roll over on this one.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
At this point, I am less concerned with how we got into this mess and more with: what are we trying to achieve, and how are we going to achive it.

The administration's handling of the situation in Iraq has been less than stellar so far.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
At this point, I am less concerned with how we got into this mess and more with: what are we trying to achieve, and how are we going to achive it.

The administration's handling of the situation in Iraq has been less than stellar so far.



I have to retort that the medias handing of the Iraqi situation has been less than stellar so far.

I'll concede that upfront planning for foreign backed and instigated insurgency was not initially planned for - especially in scope of the last 3 months. However from success's made recently to involve Iraqis in their own affairs leading to Al Sadrs capitulation temporary as it may be offers hope that things are moving in the right direction.

Serious attacks have and will happen in an effort to destabilize Iraqs new government by those with the most to lose, chiefly the Iranians, syrians and Al Qaida.

More of an effort has been made in the last few months to seal or intercept those crossing the border with the intent to cause mayhem. Even Al Qaidas leader in Iraq Zawkawi (spelling?) has allegedly written about the tightening noose of coalition forces.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Mods please put this in WOT or PAS since a posters later story was upgraded to ATSNN


df1

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Former head of KGB (Putin) supports position of the son (Bush43) of former head of CIA (Bush41). How comforting to know. BTW I have this bridge in brooklyn to sell anyone that buys this story. I'll give you a great price, honest.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Former head of KGB (Putin) supports position of the son (Bush43) of former head of CIA (Bush41). How comforting to know. BTW I have this bridge in brooklyn to sell anyone that buys this story. I'll give you a great price, honest.


Due to the rules on decorum I really can't answer this with my first thoughts.

df1 do a simple search on ATS and Google and you will find that your budding real estate business just went bust.

There is plenty of info out supporting what Putin said and the Al Qaeda connection to Iraq - but alas each real estate agent must do his/her own research - I'm not going to do yours for you.


df1

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The case proving baby bush and his cohorts are criminal liars and guilty of treason against the US is so overwhelming that one only needs to read the daily news. The only support bush has is low brow rednecks that have yet to master the ability to read.

Bush is going down for his treasonous act of exposing a CIA agent because her husband refused to lie for him. And this is only one small part.
www.fromthewilderness.com...://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_detat.html

Have somebody read this to you then perhaps you will get it.
.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by df1]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Ya, thats it. Bush gave that name out. He wanted to burn a low level CIA wonk.

Do you hear voices from the fridge?


df1

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
Ya, thats it. Bush gave that name out. He wanted to burn a low level CIA wonk.

Do you hear voices from the fridge?


Obviously you failed to read the article or you would not make such ignorant retorts.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Some people will believe anything.


I have one word for you P R O P A G A N D A.

But hey, keep grasping at those straws.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
It would seem,

1. The Valerie Plame incident (overblown as it is) has nothing to do with this post and is an attempt to change the subject for one with no clear answers to the information provided other than prevarication and vitriol.(pretty good for an illiterate redneck if I do say so myself)

2.Yup voices are in the fridge or more accurately in the wilderness.

3. Hey ECK I know you can do better than that! Score one for the good guys and it must be propaganda? Maybe you can add to this discussion by coming up with whats in it for Putin or something similar - are you tired or something?


4. It is a typical almost automatic kneejerk elitist liberal tactic to question their opponents intelligence at the slightest provocation, that way no questions or points of substance need be answered or for that matter debated.

Vladimir Putins support on fighting terrorism is nothing new, this qoute is from a photo op with President Bush at the 2002 G-8 summit in Calgary,

"PRESIDENT PUTIN: What I would like to say that the military of our nations and special services of our countries are built up in a way so that they carry this global nature. And, unfortunately, terrorism is of a global nature, as well, today. And, therefore, we have repeatedly mentioned that joint efforts are essential if you want to be a success in this fight.

Therefore, we welcome the firm position of the U.S. President in this regard. And, therefore, we welcome his courage and consistency with which he persists his policies, in spite of any elements that interfere with that. And we expect that our interaction will have -- will make a significant and decisive contribution to the elimination of terrorism worldwide."

It should be no surprise that intelligence information was in fact shared by reading (yes rednecks really can read) Putins words from 2002. His words from 2002 indicate to me that his recent comments about information sharing are not something recently dreamed up to support Bush.


df1

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
The Valerie Plame incident (overblown as it is) has nothing to do with this post and is an attempt to change the subject for one with no clear answers to the information provided other than prevarication and vitriol.(pretty good for an illiterate redneck if I do say so myself)


On Target And On Topic
Putin provided only lip service in support of bush, but not one shred of evidence. Not concerning WMDs and not concerning saddams intentions. And despite your being verbose, much like putin you didnt say anything.

Bushs childish vengeance against plame because her husband refused to fake evidence of WMDs has everything to do with the post. Relevant evidence that you can not refute was posted, try reading the evidence instead of playing word games.
.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by df1]



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Former head of KGB (Putin) supports position of the son (Bush43) of former head of CIA (Bush41). How comforting to know. BTW I have this bridge in brooklyn to sell anyone that buys this story. I'll give you a great price, honest.


Hmm you know who else thought like you? Kaiser Wilhelm.

He thought those Britts were all out to get the Germans, he was also a spineless wind-bag, so when his spineless wind-bag of a general Moltke said he can't turn the trains from attacking France (even though France with-drew their troops 10 miles from the border in compliance with Kaiser Wilhelm's acceptance to not attack France but keep the war between him and Russia) because if they sent them east they'd become a muddled mess not an Army and they'd lose initiative against both France and Russia.

How does this relate?

You think that Putin and Bush are somehow in cahoots against you.

I suggest you learn from WWI and not make the same obvious and retarded mistakes that Kaiser Wilhelm made.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
On Target And On Topic
Putin provided only lip service in support of bush, but not one shred of evidence. Not concerning WMDs and not concerning saddams intentions. And despite your being verbose, much like putin you didnt say anything.

Bushs childish vengeance against plame because her husband refused to fake evidence of WMDs has everything to do with the post. Relevant evidence that you can not refute was posted, try reading the evidence instead of playing word games.
.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by df1]


They already found WMDs boy, the US, the UN, everyone.

The UN just issued a quarterly report about Saddam's WMDs that they've found in Jordan and other arabic nations and how they even found Saddam's long-range missiles that he wasn't supposed to have, in a junk yard in the Netherlands.

After all, if the UN is lying then who do you turn to liberal bush-hating monkey?



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   
mmm, the Nederlands always seemed like a great place. Anyways, since Mr. Bush hasn't exactly come clean with his intelligence sources yet there should be no problem if he should correspond with Putin's claim.

But apparently Russia's info wasn't that critical--"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."



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Relevant evidence that you can not refute was posted, try reading the evidence instead of playing word games.


If you call evidence the ramblings of another "wild conspiracy with no real evidence site".............

The UN has even stated that Saddam did have WMD, not just Russia.... Stop blabbering the wild ramblings that you are being fed. Most of the world is agreeing with what the President and the administration have been saying all along....

" Friday, June 11, 2004

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003. "

I reported this at the following link.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The below is the original link.

www.worldtribune.com...

I believe that Russia is trying to cover its butt as to the links Phoenix and I have posted in other threads of Russia helping with terrorism against the US. now more than ever since the UN, meaning several countries, have agreed that Saddam did have WMD and they have proof of it.

Of course....unless you want to propose that all of the nations in the UN are in on the lie....



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 04:05 AM
link   


The UN has even stated that Saddam did have WMD, not just Russia.... Stop blabbering the wild ramblings that you are being fed. Most of the world is agreeing with what the President and the administration have been saying all along....


Russia did not say they had weapons of mass destruction, in fact, they explicity stated they didn't find evidence as you will read later on. What are you being fed???!!!!

First of all, Russia was opposed to the Iraqi War from the start. They advocated weapons inspections instead of a pre-emptive strike, but lets just take a look at the US-Russian connections leading up to the statements and see if there is a conspiracy, you might find all this information interesting...

U.S.-Russia Business Council
9th Annual Members and Directors Meeting
Keynote Presentation by Alexei Kudrin (IMF governor for Russia)
Paul O'neill (IMF governor for US)

Date: October 4-5, 2001 (Month after Sept. 11, day before G-8 2001)
Putin's comments were made at the G-8 in 2002

Kudrin's comments at the Business Council Meeting:



Among the most important tasks we foresee for the next couple of years is entry into the WTO...



The U.S. administration has had a lot to do with this. Secretary of Commerce Evans played a key role, as did U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick, and Treasury Secretary O'Neil, who visited Russia two months ago and gave serious impetus to our negotiation process.



During the recent visit of President Putin to Brussels, all the agreements that we are now in the process of achieving with the United States were reconfirmed at the European Union level.



Russia and the United States have tremendous potential for joint work. U.S. investments in Russia hold leading positions in the total value of accumulated investments. At the same time, in the last year other countries have begun to catch up. I think this is only temporary, and the United States, with its tremendous potential, will be able to maintain its position of the leading investor in Russia.



We view participation in the WTO as a major goal for Russia.


Source: www.usrbc.org...

So, the comments by Putin of the Iraq-terrorist connection were made at the subsequent G-8 conference in 2002. In 2001, the G8 was still concerned with Afghanistan.


Russia's WTO Status:


The WTO Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation, on 18 December 2002, agreed on an accelerated programme of work during the first half of 2003

The G-8 Summit in which Putin made his statements occured around June 27,2002. This occured prior to Russia's subsequent accelerated programme in December.
Source: www.wto.org...

As well, the coalition of the willing for the Iraqi War included Iceland and the Netherlands. The chairman of the working party for Russia in the WTO is from Iceland. The General Council member is from the Netherlands.

And anyway, check out what Putin said after he made his comments in 2002:


Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned U.S. military action against Iraq on Thursday and called for a rapid end to U.S. operations. He told senior ministers in the Kremlin: ''Military action can in no way be justified. Military action is a big political error.'' If the world submitted to the right of might then no country would be safe, he said. ''It is for these reasons that Russia insists on an end as quickly as possible to military action.''


Interesting choice of words, also consider he told this to the Kremlin, Russia's intelligence network, the same one that probably supplied the information he gave in 2002.
Source:www.cdi.org...

More of Putin's War Opposition:


Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Friday that Russia would veto the U.S.-backed resolution if needed to preserve "international stability."


And to back that up, we see this:


But many analysts say Russia does not want to risk a serious break in ties with the United States over Iraq.

Source: www.cnn.com...

Well, we may want to see if Russia will join the WTO soon enough after these talks!!!!!!

In 2002 talks, Putin additionally stated their intelligence did not include any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. But their intelligence did find out Iraq was planning a terrorist attack against the US? Russia's stance on terrorism is clear, so why would that not be a motivating factor for them to join the coalition?

I wonder how it goes with other countries, anyone want to take a stab!


[edit on 19-6-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   
DF1, I read your little article. It's amazing to me that people actually take fringe sites as gospel.
Big tip - when you see a site use the term "Neocon", realize that there is a political agenda driving the writing.

Also, what makes you think there is not a shred of evidence that Hussein had chemical/ biological weapons? Where have you been for the last 20 years?

The surprising thing was that a substantial amount was not found. The big question is who has the equipment and raw material now.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Actually I think there is some relevant evidence in that story:
Do you think it odd that after Joseph Wilson exposed the fake intelligence from Niger, that now we have that same intelligence from Russia????

BTW, can anyone point me out to documents from 2002 where Putin cites this information?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join