Lost Media , Putin's Revelation.

[Abe]

I came across this on another froum , why does the media do this crap?
Just makes everything confusing. I'm gona try to find a link.


Link (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040622-085205-5477r.htm)

-------------------

At a press conference on Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered an extraordinary statement that might explain why President Bush felt such a great sense of urgency about driving Saddam Hussein from power. Mr. Putin said that Iraq was planning some kind of attack against the United States. Unfortunately, the same major media that have erroneously suggested that the September 11 commission's report debunks any linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq have shown little interest in Mr. Putin's revelation.
According to Mr. Putin, sometime between the September 11 attacks and the start of the Iraq war, Russia's 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." The Russians passed this information on to the United States, and Mr. Bush personally thanked a Russian intelligence official for the information.
This story is a potential blockbuster for manifold reasons -- not least of which is the fact that Moscow had long been one of Saddam's closest allies and Mr. Putin was staunchly opposed to the war. Given Saddam's history of supporting terrorism -- and his attempt in 1993 to assassinate the first President Bush -- one would think that the American media would take this story seriously, and be deluging American and Russian officials with questions about the specifics of the Iraqi plot.
But the reaction has been subdued. While ABC's "World News Tonight" covered the story on Friday, other networks felt that they had more important things to talk about than a possible attack on America by Saddam . According to the Media Research Center, Friday's CBS "Evening News" didn't mention Mr. Putin's revelation, even though it spent more than two minutes on the debate over ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. (Dan Rather thought that a more important story was Bill Clinton's statement, in his new book, that he warned President-elect Bush about Osama bin Laden, but Mr. Bush didn't care.)
NBC "Nightly News" skipped the Putin story and focused on something else: a story undermining the Bush administration's contention that arch-terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- given refuge by Saddam -- is linked to al Qaeda. On "Today" the next morning, NBC buried the Putin story behind excerpts of Mr. Clinton reading a passage from his book about how Martin Luther King Jr. had inspired him. On Saturday, The Washington Post relegated the story to Page A11.
The public is poorly served by such coverage. The fact that the president of Russia effectively is taking Mr. Bush's side on the question of whether Saddam posed a threat to this country is a major news story and should be treated as such. That it is not getting this kind of coverage suggests that many journalists do not have their priorities straight.

---------------------------

other note-

Do you think Russia would make a good close ally for the U.S.? I've been hearing that Russia's fighter jets are surpassing U.S. figher jets BTW.

[MagicNakor]

Why does the media do what? Pick and choose what it reports on? (Here, I'll throw in a random string of naughty words now, just to get it out of the way: bias, liberal, conservative, divisive, France, communist, Europe, terrorist.)

I wasn't aware that the American media hadn't reported on it. Putin's revelations had been headline news for three or four days here, between the domestic dogfighting.

:ninja:

[hobbes]

Not surprised that this has been swept under the rug in here.

Seems people here would rather chant that Saddam was no threat to the US, despite attempting to kill an American president in 1993, and that he was merely a local bully, despite what Putin has said.

Sure, Putin has said this after-the-fact to earn future rewards from the US. Ok, fine, whatever you need to believe. But these warnings should be documented, right? Or do you think he just made them up?

Everyone seems so willing to readily post their Anti-American articles, and equally as willing to pretend that a potentially important article be completely ignored, if it does not fit with the program.

Oh well, let's all just keep pretending that the world is black and white.

[Rat Faced]

According to Mr. Putin, sometime between the September 11 attacks and the start of the Iraq war, Russia's 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." The Russians passed this information on to the United States, and Mr. Bush personally thanked a Russian intelligence official for the information.




And the USA wouldnt make preperations against a country that has made it plane that its going to attack you?

There is nothing new here... of course they're going to make these plans. They arent gonna sit on their arse without making them.

However....did they actually follow through with them?

Apart from attacking US (and other Coalition Soldiers) in Iraq, that is... and if they do now...well the USA is the invader, they will be fully justified in the eyes of many.

[Tikibonbon]

http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=115062 ;)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@25 June 2004 - 22:54
There is nothing new here... of course they're going to make these plans. They arent gonna sit on their arse without making them.

However....did they actually follow through with them?


Wasn't that the entire lesson learned from 9/11?

A stitch in time saves nine.

[clocker]

From Tiki's AP article...

The Russian leader did not elaborate on any details of the warnings of terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al Qaeda terror network.

Putin, one of the strongest critics of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also said Russia had no information that Saddam's regime had actually committed any terrorist acts.

So let's see here...hmmmm, no details, no information, no collaboration.
I can see why Bush supporters leap at this as vindication.
It fits the profile for Bush acceptance.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@26 June 2004 - 00:02
From Tiki's AP article...

The Russian leader did not elaborate on any details of the warnings of terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al Qaeda terror network.

Putin, one of the strongest critics of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also said Russia had no information that Saddam's regime had actually committed any terrorist acts.

So let's see here...hmmmm, no details, no information, no collaboration.
I can see why Bush supporters leap at this as vindication.
It fits the profile for Bush acceptance.
So plotting is just good fun, and commission is the only thing that matters.

Fantastic, let 9/11 happen again and we can say, "oops". Do you think Saddam or his son's would ever stop plotting, or supporting terrorist groups? Do you not know that he attempted to kill Bush Sr. in 1993, what was that, a practical joke? The man has a wee bit of a record, the US has a very legitimate reason for wanting him out of power.

How many posts do we have on this forum which condemn Bush about the 9/11 threat. He was playing golf, he was warned, he did nothing.

What did Putin do? Oh, he warned him, and he did something.

You would think from reading this forum that his knowledge of 9/11 was cut and dry obvious and he was too stupid to do anything.

In reality, his knowledge of the potential of 9/11 was probably as nebulous as what he got from Putin. So many vague threats, which is real, which is smoke. Only the retrospective historians* could clearly see how obvious 9/11 was.

I'm no Bush fan, I was more commenting on the bias of this forum. How they will glut themselves on anything anti-Bush and ignore anything that might be favorable or indicate that the Iraq War has some gray and is not so simply black and white. Agenda is more important than truth, to some.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Talk about wanting it both ways, this forum takes the cake.

Maybe now we can start bashing the US for coming into the World Wars late.

I think I now remember why I hate politics.

*a word I made up.

[clocker]

Feeling a bit peevish upon our abrupt return, are we hobbes?
The point is not/never has been "was Sadam plotting against the US".
Of course he was.

Fer Chrissake, bloody Canada has probably wargamed an invasion of the US.

The point is- was he capable of presenting an imminent, direct threat to us?
Did he have the manpower, materiel and means to project same into our territory?

Answer: NO.

Was our desire to remove him legitmate?
Sure.
Was our right to do so legitimate?
Based upon factual evidence uncovered so far: NO.

Putin's claims that the Russian intelligence apparatus verified ties between Iraq and terrorist threats on the US are nebulous beyond credibility until proven otherwise.

Where's the beef?
The US media didn't "sweep this story under the rug".
There was no story to bother with.

[hobbes]

By the way, much is said about the "illegal war".

Let's talk about that.

The UN is in no way a judicial entity. It is filled with politicians that vote as they are told.

It is not about "right or wrong", it is all about politics.

Iraq owed Russia money, France was about to start drilling oil in Iraq, both countries would have vetoed regardless of ANY evidence.

Oil, stupid oil. Those damn French want evil oil. I thought only Americans did things for oil?

Is that how a judge makes his verdict, sure, if he is corrupt.

So when we are handed a decision from a corrupt judge, who gives a fuck?

Illegal war? Illegal to a corrupt politically based enity called the UN. Those little feckers can't do anything but hand out food and blankets.

So I will worry about the illegality of the war when someone who is not corrupt renders the decision.

To me, the UN is only offering an opinion, which we, like Iraq, like Israel, like everyone else don't particularly care to heed. It will do nothing as usual, but offer it's futile protests in a high skweeky voice.


@clocker,

I think you missed the thrust of my thread. It has never been my contention to justify anything. Just to point out what this forum reacts to or ignores.

I think my previous post points this out rather adroitly.

I guess I could make a new thread called Bush is a stupid lying idiot who lies and wages illegal wars 'cause he is stupid and Isreal controls the Pentagon, and Sharon is Rumsfeld's cousin and WW3 is around the bend.

And we could all yukk it up all night long.

I also forgot to mention for the 3rd time, attempting assassinate a former President is not a "war game".

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@26 June 2004 - 01:59
Where's the beef?
The US media didn't "sweep this story under the rug".
There was no story to bother with.
I'm glad they were able to so definitively prove that this was all bunk and in such short order.

Oh, wait they didn't.

How is Putin's statement anymore or less credible than the statement made by those who warned of 9/11? Why didn't we act then? Because the statemnets were nebulous.

But, now we can turn our attention to the glorious Mr. Clinton and his exciting book. Blow jobs are so much more entertaining.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@25 June 2004 - 22:11
...I was more commenting on the bias of this forum. How they will glut themselves on anything anti-Bush and ignore anything that might be favorable or indicate that the Iraq War has some gray and is not so simply black and white. Agenda is more important than truth, to some.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Talk about wanting it both ways, this forum takes the cake.


Ummm...what you said. ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@25 June 2004 - 20:11


I'm no Bush fan, I was more commenting on the bias of this forum. How they will glut themselves on anything anti-Bush and ignore anything that might be favorable or indicate that the Iraq War has some gray and is not so simply black and white. Agenda is more important than truth, to some.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Talk about wanting it both ways, this forum takes the cake.


Your comment about the "black/white" view of the war is dead on, hobbes.
Unfortunately, I disagree about the origin of this polarization.

Bush championed this war in no uncertain terms.
WMD.
Immenent threat.
Direct links to terrorists, specifically 9/11.

Who's fault is it now that all three of these assertions have been debunked?
This forum's?

Bush made his bed and peed all over it... now he can sleep it it.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by hobbes+26 June 2004 - 01:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 26 June 2004 - 01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@25 June 2004 - 22:54
There is nothing new here... of course they&#39;re going to make these plans. They arent gonna sit on their arse without making them.

However....did they actually follow through with them?


Wasn&#39;t that the entire lesson learned from 9/11?

A stitch in time saves nine. [/b][/quote]
They made the plans because they were under immenent attack..

If the USA did not make plans of this type, under the same type of threat, then they would be grossly negligent.


You cannot say that plans made because of what a known enemies plans are...justfy the plans of the enemy.


IF Iraq had plans to attack the USA BEFORE 9/11, i could see your argument...as it is, there is no argument. :blink:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker+26 June 2004 - 14:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 26 June 2004 - 14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@25 June 2004 - 20:11


I&#39;m no Bush fan, I was more commenting on the bias of this forum.&nbsp; How they will glut themselves on anything anti-Bush and ignore anything that might be favorable or indicate that the Iraq War has some gray and is not so simply black and white.&nbsp; Agenda is more important than truth, to some.

Damned if you do, damned if you don&#39;t. Talk about wanting it both ways, this forum takes the cake.


Your comment about the "black/white" view of the war is dead on, hobbes.
Unfortunately, I disagree about the origin of this polarization.

Bush championed this war in no uncertain terms.
WMD.
Immenent threat.
Direct links to terrorists, specifically 9/11.

Who&#39;s fault is it now that all three of these assertions have been debunked?
This forum&#39;s?

Bush made his bed and peed all over it... now he can sleep it it. [/b][/quote]
Agreed Clocker.

He will get no invitation for a sleepover at my house, the little bed wetter.

My post was about how this forum tends to ignore anything which is not totally anti-Bush, as it does not fit their agenda. Shades of gray and all that.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@26 June 2004 - 12:43
...how this forum tends to ignore anything which is not totally anti-Bush, as it does not fit their agenda. Shades of gray and all that.
Again:

What you said.




















We really must stop this, Hobbes; your reputation will surely suffer.

Mine&#39;s already in the crapper. ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4+26 June 2004 - 10:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 26 June 2004 - 10:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@26 June 2004 - 12:43
...how this forum tends to ignore anything which is not totally anti-Bush, as it does not fit their agenda.&nbsp; Shades of gray and all that.
Again:

What you said.
[/b][/quote]
I agree ( again) with the statement that this board is overwhelmingly anti-US in tone, but is this really the issue that you want to hang your hat on?

I think we blew this one big-time and the sooner we admit it, the better off the whole world will be.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker+26 June 2004 - 20:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 26 June 2004 - 20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@26 June 2004 - 10:48
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@26 June 2004 - 12:43
...how this forum tends to ignore anything which is not totally anti-Bush, as it does not fit their agenda. Shades of gray and all that.
Again:

What you said.

I agree ( again) with the statement that this board is overwhelmingly anti-US in tone, but is this really the issue that you want to hang your hat on?

I think we blew this one big-time and the sooner we admit it, the better off the whole world will be.[/b][/quote]
I think my first post in this thread says exactly what I want to hang my hat on.

As for how the Iraq war has played out, I have never been hesitant to voice my negative opinions.

If true though, Putin&#39;s comments are a bit of a shot in the arm, as far as restoring a modicum of credibility.

I like to talk about the issues. Sometimes we do good, sometimes we do bad and I think I call foul when I see one.

I was simply noting that if something comes around that might paint the US in a favorable way, the thread is ignored. If other opposite opinion is posted, it is a forum hey-day.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@26 June 2004 - 17:33

I think we blew this one big-time and the sooner we admit it, the better off the whole world will be.
I&#39;ve honestly lost track-

Which one are we speaking about? :huh:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4+27 June 2004 - 00:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 27 June 2004 - 00:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@26 June 2004 - 17:33

I think we blew this one big-time and the sooner we admit it, the better off the whole world will be.
I&#39;ve honestly lost track-

Which one are we speaking about? :huh: [/b][/quote]
I believe we are talking about Monica Lewinsky and Bills new book. She is the one who really blew it.

[clocker]

I&#39;ll get me coat.






And hobbes&#39;s too, if he&#39;s not looking.

[lynx]

Originally posted by clocker+26 June 2004 - 03:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 26 June 2004 - 03:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Where&#39;s the beef?
The US media didn&#39;t "sweep this story under the rug".
There was no story to bother with. [/b]
I think this is why most people have ignored this thread.

The original posted story makes no mentioned that Putin repeated his heavy criticism of the Bush Administration&#39;s actions in Iraq. On balance, Putin&#39;s statement appeared neither pro nor anti Bush, and was not a particularly big issue.


Originally posted by hobbes@
I also forgot to mention for the 3rd time, attempting assassinate a former President is not a "war game". <!--QuoteBegin-clocker
So let&#39;s see here...hmmmm, no details, no information, no collaboration.
I can see why Bush supporters leap at this as vindication.
It fits the profile for Bush acceptance.[/quote]

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes+26 June 2004 - 23:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 26 June 2004 - 23:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@27 June 2004 - 00:08
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@26 June 2004 - 17:33

I think we blew this one big-time and the sooner we admit it, the better off the whole world will be.
I&#39;ve honestly lost track-

Which one are we speaking about? :huh:
I believe we are talking about Monica Lewinsky and Bills new book. She is the one who really blew it. [/b][/quote]
Ah, yes-

She had very capable help, though. ;)






Hey Hobbes-where&#39;s your coat? :huh:

[clocker]

Hi j2,
I thought I heard footsteps echoing in here...

Deader than a doornail of late, isn&#39;t it?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@27 June 2004 - 09:34
Hi j2,
I thought I heard footsteps echoing in here...

Deader than a doornail of late, isn&#39;t it?
I&#39;ll say.

Nobody to disagree with but ourselves.

Oh, well-

I may just take a nice nap amongst the cats, since it&#39;s a day off. ;)