- Completely true. Russia did supply that. Of course, they made 90% of it up and the other 10% was wrong, but they did provide it, and that's what counts!
- Joking aside, here's the key to the story. Buried in the small print of this article is this sentence: "He (Putin)said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts." Oh. Never mind.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't actually read these articles.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, of course, that on any given day, 100 countries provide evidence to the United States that 100 other countries are planning an attack on some American interest or another. At some time or another in the past five years, sources from virtually every country in the world have told the United States that virtually every other country was planning an attack.
I suggest you can fill in just about any blanks in the lead sentence.
____ says _______ gave Bush intelligence that suggested _________'s regime in ____ was preparing attacks in the United States'.
For example, fill in:
Chirac
France
Jong-Il
North Korea
This is true because the word "credible" is missing from the sentence.
You'll note that Putin (weasel that he is) never said that he provided good intelligence or credible links - allowing his claim to encompass just the usual unfounded rumors that circulate through the intel community every day. (Or, given Russia's own history of disinformation, maybe not even rumors, but just outright lies!)
Why are people trying to politisize this war? Saddam is in Jail. Uday and Kusay, (sp?) are dead. How can any of that be a bad thing? Are people so naive as to believe that al-Keida were never in Iraq? They stayed put in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, Spain, Germany, Iran, Florida, Minnisota, shall I go on? But they never went to Iraq? There is documented proof of Muhammed Atta meeting a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April of 2001, why aren't we hearing about that? Because that doesn't create scandal, which creates news, which generates paper sales, which generates adverstising sales. Shall I go on? I don't think I need to.
ReplyDelete