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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
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.



Of course not. Russia might find it more economically friendly to Russia to leave Saddam Hussein in power and for him to make those terrorist moves against the US.

After all, the fall of the $ and the economic impacts that would be had on America would probably strengthen Russia, or benefit Russia. Also didn't Russia have some oil contracts or some other big contracts with Saddam Husseins Iraq at that time?




posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Dude, read the connection I made between Russia and the US. I think you will find they benefit more from siding with the US. Their opposition stemmed from not having any first hand intelligence of the WMDs. Countries are always skeptical of foreign evidence. A lot of the politicians in Russia and almost all the parties were enraged by the war. Putin could have gone a lot farther than he did, mainly because of US relations. Anyway...

Apparently others aren't sure when Putin made these statements...
Source: www.boston.com... les/2004/06/19/putin_says_he_warned_us_that_hussein_plotted_attack/" target="_blank" class="postlink">www.boston.com... _hussein_plotted_attack/

A lot of people are wondering where this information came from, I guess it was lost. So its just hearsay again...



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Bush naming the CIA agent who got killed is VERY simular to the British Govenments naming of Dr David Kelly, a key weapons inspector who spoke out against the war. Both conveniently died before anything major was said.

Just though I would post as in relation to the CIA coment earlier.

[edit on 19-6-2004 by 7th_Chakra]


df1

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
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.


Its outrageous that the moderator of a 'fringe site' would attempt to refute the content of another site by calling it a 'fringe site' while making no attempt to refute the content of the article. The remaining part of your baseless assault is quibbling over the use of the term "neocon" which shows nothing except your desperation which also fails to get to the meat of the matter.


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?


Putin did not provide a shred of evidence as I said, please provide one shred of evidence from putin rather than twisting my words. I am confident that you will fail. Over the last 20 years, the only WMDs that saddam was ever proven to have were provided by the US (reagan/bush41).


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


The WMDs that did exist in Iraq were bombed into oblivion in the first gulf war. The UN weapons inspectors could find nothing. Sophisticated US satellites could find nothing. And the US troops on the ground found nothing. So only the gullible that give blind support to bush43 find this to be a big question, the rest of us know better.
.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1

On Target And On Topic
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.


df1 why in a thread about Putins comments specifically saying Saddam did in fact threaten the United States with terrorist attack, are you insisting on this tack of connecting the Plame incident to Saddam making threats - where are you going with this? If want to use questionable sourcing and info to claim Bush is a liar why don't you just say "Bush is a liar" that blanket statement has just as much veracity.

BTW, Plames husband was looking for yellow cake importation to Iraq, yellow cake as a precursor cannot be made into any kind of weapon unless it is extensively processed into a highly concentrated form of uranium. So if your esteemed site is claiming Plames husband was in Africa looking for WMD it is wrong on that count and if its wrong on that count it follows to say it is wrong period.

By your own side on occasion after occasion it has been noted that precursor materials do not constitute WMD, now you want it both ways to bolster what I believe to be a baseless and misdirecting argument about Putins comments.

Muaddib and I have advanced the theory many times that Putin and the Russians are playing both sides of the fence in order to benifit politically and economically, in this case he derives both benifits. His motivation may be due (and I am speculating) to inside knowledge that the Bush administration is about to prove terrorist ties of Saddam or his WMD. Putin would really want to be on the right side of that fence in that situation now would'nt he?

To do otherwise would be at cross purpose to economic and political asperations of his government.

To just give Bush support out of the blue on Saddams threats would not do much for Putin at home or abroad without any underlying reason or because he "likes" Bush, no the Russians do not operate that way and never have, the world scene is one big chess board to them.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Oh wow. So let me get this straight. You are saying because the russian president told Bush that Iraq wanted to hit the US that bush was justified in lieing to the american people and the whole world? I think process that you used to make this sound reasonable in your head needs to be revamped because it's broken. Bush was NOT correct. I think we can all name quite a few countries who would strike at the US if they could, does that mean we should falsify intelligence reports, kill the people who know the truth, lie to the whole world and invade their country?


df1

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenixdf1 why in a thread about Putins comments specifically saying Saddam did in fact threaten the United States with terrorist attack.


As I see it, the point of this thread is about US justification for invading Iraq, but for the sake discussion lets look at the facts limiting this thread just to Putin.

Putins words of support years after the fact are contradicted, by his own previous actions condeming the US invasion of Iraq and his failure to provide any support to the US lead coalition. Putins words are paled by his actions. I defy you to refute these facts. Nothing more needs to be said.

The last word is yours, I have nothing to add.
.

[edit on 19-6-2004 by df1]

[edit on 19-6-2004 by df1]



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Yea, I don't understand you Phoneix. Are you trying to justify Putin's statements and Russia-US's connection on the war in Iraq? I for one think this is a ploy, and that it is very,very,very WRONG!



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
Oh wow. So let me get this straight. You are saying because the Russian president told Bush that Iraq wanted to hit the US that bush was justified in lying to the American people and the whole world? I think process that you used to make this sound reasonable in your head needs to be revamped because it's broken. Bush was NOT correct. I think we can all name quite a few countries who would strike at the US if they could, does that mean we should falsify intelligence reports, kill the people who know the truth, lie to the whole world and invade their country?


No you didnt get it straight. What I have implied IS that when Bush, H. Clinton and J. Kerry among others said Saddam was a terror threat to the US and opposition has bent over backwards and inside out to claim otherwise, Putin bolstered the case that these three were right in their original assertion.
Making Bushs decision to oust Saddam the right decision all along.

Can I see evidence of falsified Intel reports from a legitimate source?

Who did bush kill to cover-up the truth, again provide a legitimate link.

As far as lying is concerned one would have to say many a democrat also went out of their way to lie on Saddams WMD along with the UN and countless other countries - this conspiracy of yours is getting so large and involves so many people that if it were credible it would be front page news non-stop. Why isnt it FrontPage? Would it be wishful thinking by the left still smarting from political loss - one has to wonder.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom
and it only came 1 week after the G-8 Summit where they all got together to decide how to divvy up the spoils of the rest of the world.

You can't BUY that kind of loyalty....oh wait....I guess you can......



There is no friend anywhere - Lao Tse


www.atsnn.com...

I'm in agreement with Voice_of Doom.

Sorry for cross-posting that, but it made more sense than passing it off on my own, when he said it better.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Putins words of support years after the fact are contradicted, by his own previous actions condeming the US invasion of Iraq and his failure to provide any support to the US lead coalition. Putins words are paled by his actions. I defy you to refute these facts. Nothing more needs to be said.


df1, study some Russian history, specifically the difference between their foriegn policy and domestic policy - you will find there is a big difference in what they do and say internationally and domestically.

So on the one hand we have Putin supporting the war on terror because thats good for Russia on the international stage.

On the other hand at home support of the US doesn't play because of internal politics demanding that Russia is a world power both economically and militarily.

Putin has a real problem with Cheknyan rebels in the south, hence the support against Al Qaeda.

Losing hard cash by Iraqs change in government possibly negating billions of dollars funneled to Russias business elite (mafia) is a downside domestically that made Putin say he was against action in Iraq by the US. It was nothing more than political survival on his part then to be against the invasion.

Now that things are turning around in Iraq he has to be on the winning side, hence his admittence of the Iraqi threat to the US under Saddams rule.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   


Pheonix

Can I see evidence of falsified Intel reports from a legitimate source?


Can I see evidence of Intel reports from a legitimate source? I've only seen assertions from main stream News. Oh, but they are all reliable in that they get most of their news from OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DICTATION. Yea, the same people who wanted to start the war even before September 11. Refer to PNAC documents in 1997-2000 by members of Bush Administration.



this conspiracy of yours is getting so large and involves so many people that if it were credible it would be front page news non-stop.


Once, again, where does our news come from, from what the government says is right. The news comes from the people who benefit, who wanted the war with these countries before the war on terrorism started. This is even beyond Iraq.

The larger the conspiracy gets, the more people there are to control the flow of information.

BTW, we gave Iraq their WMDs (coincedence?). Also, look at the position of the terrorist supporting countries, all along the Oil Reserves of the Dead and Caspian Sea.

I still haven't seen any actual verification of the al Queda-Iraq link except from those directly involved who would benefit from it via ISRAEL.

WHAT HAPPENED TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join