Get a grip.

This says it all:
They can scream is as loud as they want, it doesn't make it any more true. It never made sense, it was enver backed up by credible evidence at any point and that has not changed today.

Furthermore, the BBC article doesn't make much sense:

Putin says they warned of PLANS to attack, but did not connect actual PAST attacks to Iraq.

Where do the Mohammed Atta / Prague meetings sit in all this?

Originally posted by Undertoad You still aren't getting it, UT. After we foiled Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush 41, he turned over a new leaf. Putin is just coming up with stuff to distract from the war in Chechnya. :)

Seriously, tho - I think its interesting that, when facing nearly unbearable pressure to justify the Iraq war, W chose not to disclose the information Putin provided to him. Had Putin not disclosed it, I doubt we ever would have known. I wonder what else he's not disclosing - perhaps from sources not as willing or able to go public as Putin did.

I'd say fuck all, if they had something we'd know about it, they're busy pandering half-lies as loudly as they can as it is. Remember this is the same administration that burnt a CIA officer and an entire operation in the wild doing WMD investigations because they didn't like what her husband said, I doubt they'd give a damn about protecting sources if there was political advantage.


fixed a few typos in edit.

What I got from Putin's statements was that Iraq (Saddam) was also planning attacks on the US and the "War on Terror(ists)" didn't end with Afghanistan. Not that there was a corroboration between Osama and Saddam.;)

Re: to further stoke the fire
 

That's not a news story. That's Bill O'Reilly, who freely admits that he isn't a journalist. Sometimes.

You're assuming Putin's information existed before the Iraq war.

He said between 9-11 and the start of the war.:)

As much as I am against the war in Iraq, and disbelieve 99% of what the Bush administration, the Blair administration, and my own Aussie administration say in justification of Iraq, most of the "informed" comment I heard over the weekend from very experienced journalists, cast strong doubt over the validity of Putin's claims. Don't forget that he has not presented any evidence to back up his claim, yet, and is not likely to.

I would like to debate Bush's credibility just as much as anyone else, but I think we have to be fair. There is enough damning evidence against him anyway, without having to rely on Putin.

And don't forget that it is unlikely that Saddam would have been in a position to take any action against the US. We now know that pretty much all of his rhetoric was just bluster. He really did not have the resources to do anything of any consequence against the US, and as much as Saddam hates the US, it is extremely unlikely that he would resort to terrorism.

He had enough money on him in his hidey hole, to do a lot of damage. It's a matter of whether he had the balls.:)

Before the war it would have been against his "sense of honour" (don't say it, I know, I know...), to take action that was anything other than direct - eg. a military strike against the US. After the war he might have become so desperate that he would have accepted assistance from anyone (eg. terrorists), but it looks like he did not follow through on that avenue (if he ever thought of it in the first place).

Saddam believed in direct action, and saw himself as a heroic fighter, mounted on his stallion, swinging a sword above his head. I think I remember seeing a painting in one of his palaces that showed exactly that image.

Saddam's style would have been to take his army across the oceans, in his vast navy, and invade the infidels, and sack DC.

And pay a reward to suicide bombers.:p
Oh,...and where was he when they invaded Kuwait?

I must admit that I forgot that it was alleged that he had paid people to kill the "invaders", but this was after the fact. We are talking about what he was proposing to do *before* the war, not after.

Kuwait was a conventional military campaign. Sure, Saddam did not lead his troops into battle, but he saw himself as a great general, fighting a justified battle (remember, he believed that he had tacit approval of the US to invade Kuwait - right or wrong, that is what he believed).

Look, I don't want to come across as a Saddam lover. The guy is a scum bag of the first order, and he should be shot daily for the rest of eternity for his crimes against his people.:rattat:

I was thinking of paying Pals to blow up Jews.
Yes, he was a major scumbag.
Yes, any connection between him and Osama is tenuous at best and not the reason for the war, no matter what Bush claims.
Also, this is just one small point in the movie, which this thread is about.:beer:

I know - I started this thread, remember? :rolleyes:

According what Moore told Letterman, the doco is about the justification for the war, and how the US handled the war and its aftermath. That's what we are discussing, isn't it? :confused: