« Collusion | Main | Well, Well, Well, My Michel(l)e »

I ain't got time for the game

ASTANA, Kazakhstan 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.
That's Putin, who opposed the war in Iraq and therefore has no self-serving reason to be propping up Bush at the moment. Yet, the typical response from the left: Putin is lying. It seems to me that every time something comes out in the press that might stick a pin in one of the lefts' balloons, they trot out the same line: It's a lie. No refutation, no back up, no facts to support their theory. Oh, that's not true. He's making it up. It's a lie. Don't believe it. And, of course, liars are terrible, immoral people. Unless you're Bill Clinton. Then your're admired. My patience is gone. This would not be a good day to antagonize me. Just saying.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I ain't got time for the game:

» Innnteresting from Inoperable Terran
Putin says he has intelligence that Saddam was cooperating with Osama. That means pretty much everyone on the planet except the 9/11 commission knew that.... [Read More]

» Smiley's People from protein wisdom
Ted Kennedy responds: "Feh. What do the Russians know about spying, anyway...?" **** h/t michele... [Read More]

» Smiley's People from protein wisdom
Ted Kennedy responds:* "Feh. What do the Russians know about spying, anyway...?" **** h/t michele... [Read More]

» Smiley's People from protein wisdom
Ted Kennedy responds:* "Feh. What do the Russians know about spying, anyway...?" **** h/t michele update: This sounds eerily familiar to me, somehow...... [Read More]

Comments

Yes,I took the bait and peered under the rock that is DU.Now I'm PO'ed,too.

the contemporary Left is as religiously dogmatic in their beliefs than any whacko religious right holy roller ever was. They no longer argue, they assert, and any dissent from that assertion is decried and attacked with ad homenims.

Just as a group of religious fanatics would "pray" over a sick child and let the child die rather than betray their beliefs by seeking medical help, so the Left would rather see America lose Iraq and lose against Islamic-fascists rather than give one bit of credit to their great Satan, Bushitler.

So let's just blame Russian intelligence!

Seriously, there were many conservatives and others saying Bush was a fool to trust Putin so much, but he persisted. Perhaps Bush knew more about Putin than the pundits?

I am not saying Putin is a 100% good guy now, but over the last few weeks he has shown to be a good Bush defender.

Hmmmm
Should I trust Putin? Or Richard Ben-Veniste? Putin? Or Richard Ben-Veniste?

Hell, give me a coin to flip.

I've often had the impression that Putin is a lot more helpful behind the scenes than what you see publicly. He's a smart guy - I think he understands the nature of the global war and the enemy, and for damn sure is aware that Russia is on the front lines of that war.

But he's got domestic constituencies that are still clinging to delusions about Russia being a superpower, so Putin has to keep the United States at arms length, at least publicly.

And Iraq is complicated by many of those important domestic interests having vested interests in the Saddam regime.

Bad mood?
Two Words: Baby Bombers

Via QandO, by way of James Joyner at Outside the Beltway, 5 questions to ask without using the word "lie":

1: How much credibility did Russia assign to that information?
2: How much credibility does the US assign to that information?
3: Why are we just hearing this now?
4: Are we just hearing about this now because the information was dubious?
5: Through what kind of sources did Russia get this information? If they came from Russia's own intelligence work, they would have more credibility than if they came from Iraqi (dis)informants (read: Chalabi's INC)

If you scroll down toward the bottom of this comment thread, you can see what the reaction from the left side of the spectrum will be.

It seems to me that every time something comes out in the press that might stick a pin in one of the lefts' balloons, they trot out the same line: It's a lie. No refutation, no back up, no facts to support their theory.

Now, I certainly don't want to antagonize you, Michele, but I just feel like I have to point out, you didn't cite any refutation, back up, or facts to support this theory. Jusy sayin ...

Just to be devil's advocate here, it costs Putin nothing to say this now, and he may recognize that it helps Bush in a way he may feel Bush would be thankful for. Conspiracy theories make a lot more sense when you're dealing with an ex-KGB guy, after all. It costs Putin nothing at home to say this, since he says he still opposed the war and, if anything, that makes him look more anti-American ("I wasn't in favor of the war even if the U.S. was gonna get attacked.")

Just sayin'.

I'm curious to see how far the MSM will take this. My guess is they run the AP story, and never say another word about it. CBSnews.com, the WaPost.com, and ABCNews.com don't even have this on their main page. I'd really like to see them dig into this story, some true investigative journalism on their part. I won't be holding my breath, though. It's probably way too much to ask.

Badger

The other question is (I forgot where I saw it): if the intelligence is credible, and Putin believes it is credible, why did Russia consistently side against the U.S. during the discussion about getting a resolution last year?

The Bush 'Give Them a Nickname Strategy' (GTNS) worked.

Pootie-Poot came through.

the 5 questions norbizness poses are extremely valid. and he took the words out of my mouth with his last comment. if the evidence against iraq was so amazing...why didn't putin support our preemptive action?

I'm 100% behind Bush and TWOT, but Putin is just glad to have someone in office who doesn't fret too much about the goings on in Chechnya. I suspect that's his motive for helping Bush.

Why didn't Putin support our preemptive action? "Oil for Palaces" kickbacks. He's got the money, we went into Iraq anyway, so now he can talk.

Yet, the typical response from the left: Putin is lying.

Or not. My typical response is that "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" doesn't specify the source of the information, the likelihood that it was accurate, or the size of the attacks.

If I wrote, "Saddam Hussein's minister of agriculture told me he's gonna throw eggs and toilet paper at army bases in the States and abroad," on a piece of construction paper, in crayon, and mailed it to Russian special services, Putin could make this same claim with absolute sincerity. Obviously his data was more substantive than that but, without details, we can't guess how much more substantive it was.

In any case, it may be argued that even the most aggressive interpretation of such data might not have justified the invasion of Iraq. Many relevant points could be brought to bear in such a discussion. But you never examine those. You don't even seem capable of admitting they exist.

If you spend all your time ascribing bullshit arguments to the left and then calling them bullshit, you'll always win. You'll always be right. And, apparently, thousands of people will turn out every day to watch you engage in these acts of apoplectic onanism because it's nice for people who supported a war for questionable reasons to see someone they agree with be right.

Even if she's only arguing with herself.

It's pretty sad.

also, unless putin didn't have this evidence until very recently (and that was not the case), why didn't WE cite it as evidence to support the war?

"why didn't WE cite it as evidence to support the war?"...often, intelligence comes in a form that cannot be disclosed without revealing sources and getting the wrong people killed.

So if this is so damning of saddam, why didn't bush mention this during his charge for war? Seems if the russians did hav "solid" intel they a) wouldn't have been so againts the war and b) bush would have used this instead of those wmds we can't seem to find. But don't let ruin your little circle jerk in your thinking that bush has finally be vindicated

true that sources must sometimes be protected, but i'm pretty sure bush could have gotten evidence this damning cleared.

Just a couple quick question answers for some questions above:

Q) Why didn't President Bush use this to justify the war?

A) He didn't need to. A majority of Americans were already convinced, so there was no need to let Saddam know that we knew about these plots.

Q) Is there something murky and suspicious about Putin knowing this intelligence and not supporting the war?

A) Not if he didn't believe attacking Iraq was necessary to prevent the terrorist attacks that Saddam was planning. In fact, if he had a really excellent source on these attacks, he could have gotten a lot of goodwill from America by giving us details that would let us stop the planned attacks.

But don't let the fact that there are perfectly good, innocent explanations stop you from finding these questions deep and troubling ;).

A) He didn't need to. A majority of Americans were already convinced, so there was no need to let Saddam know that we knew about these plots.

yeah but after the lack of wmds, the yellowcake debacle, etc, etc, this would have been really good reason to go to war. better than wmds or anything else in my books. this evidence would have made me support the war. if true, i think it's the most damning thing out there. i mean i'm not saying putin's claims aren't true...just the way they were released is, well, pretty sketchy. and deserves to be questioned and examined.