Do you think the administation is making up or exaggerating the facts in the “revelation” about the Russians giving information to Iraq about troop movements during the invasion in order to yet again try to get the American people to be so afraid that we follow him blindly re: the Patriot Act and this latest revelation last night on TV about the computer system that gathers little bits of information from and about citizens and puts together two and two and often comes up with five? I have this feeling that a lot of people, especially people under the age of 30, don’t care.
GD or the Pit? GD or the Pit? GD or the Pit? flips coin
Moved from IMHO to GD.
Where’s the evidence any of these claims are true?
From Reuters
That’s what we know. I suppose you can claim that the documents are forged by someone, but that claim can be made of any documentary historical evidence, can’t it?
Even beyond that, what possible advantage could be gained by manipulating public opinion against the Russians? Isn’t Putin the guy of whom Bush said he’d looked into his soul and saw a good man or somesuch?
Plenty of things to get worked up about. But this ain’t one of them. If anything I’d wager the administration will try to downplay it so as to control public irritation at the Russians.
Moderator’s Note: Edited thread title.
Well…no, not really. Do you have any evidence that the ‘administration’ (from the link it looks more like the Pentagon to me) is ‘making up or exaggerating the facts’? I really don’t see what they would gain by implicating the RUSSIANS as far as getting a freebee for the Patriot Act goes. Maybe you could flesh out your theory somewhat to show how exposing the Russians (or making stuff up about them) helps push through the Patriot Act…
-XT
A double agent or a manipulation of the Russian intelligence?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4843394.stm
I agree that the administration will try to downplay it but not for the reason **Jonathan Chance ** mentions, this actually IMHO points to a level of intelligence far better than what the “it is not my fault, I had bad intelligence on Iraq” excuse that they have been trying to pass recently, it points to an example that the good intelligence was there. IOW saying “I never wanted war” looks even sillier IMHO.
Um…could you expand on this a bit? I don’t get it. I mean for decades the US was wholey focused on the USSR/Russia as THE enemy. We have poured in astounding amounts of money to penetrate their security and gain intelligency. Seems to me that we SHOULD have a much higher level of intelligence on them than on Iraq…or anyone else for that matter. Why does the fact we have high levels of intelligence on Russia mean we should have equally high levels of intelligence on Iraq (this isn’t even getting into the fact that intelligence is compartmentalized, so we may have good intelligence on one aspect of what a foreign government/military is doing, but not on others).
-XT
Weren’t the Russians implicated in some of the earlier versions of the story about Saddam shipping his WmD’s to Syria? Perhaps the pentagon isn’t ready to let that legend slip entirely from the public imagination. If they make the Russians look like bad guys over Iraq, they’ll have an easier time making the Russians look like bad guys over the Iran nuclear ‘crisis’.
On the other hand, what advantage to the Russians get from helping the Iraqis? Did they think that if Saddam knew where the US tanks were coming from he could somehow win?
Same thing that’s gained by manipulating public opinion against the French. If the members of the UNSC was in cahoots with Saddam, then the Bush administration isn’t to blame for the lack of international support for the war.
Not saying the Bush administration is making up the documents. But look at the Reuters report, it basically just says the Russian ambassodor told the Iraqi’s something. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Personally I’m skeptical the Russians gave any substantial info to a country that was pretty much doomed to loose in anycase.
Besides the cold war being over 
, indeed I also think we have a higher level of intelligence over Russia, so I do think we knew what was going on and the false information was then planted in combination with the good information, it is a classic maneuver really.
Of course I do put this together with the evidence of the false torture information the administration got so conveniently to find a connection with Saddam and Al qaeda to justify war in Iraq, put that and many other pieces together and the Iraq thing is looking even less of an accident nowadays.
I do believe the Russian ambassador in question was the recipient of over a million ‘Oil for Food’ dollars.
That’s about all the justification you need.
From The Times Online
People really should be paying more attention to the oil for food scandal. What we have here is numeous officials in several governments being wholly corrupted by money from Iraq that was intended for the Iraqi people. It explains much. For example, there are other documents that show that Iraq was extensively involved in manipulating officials in France.
Anyway, here’s a more detailed description of the documents regarding the Russian intelligence: Russian Ambassador Gives Intelligence to Iraq
The reason why I do see a “classic maneuver” is that this looked like Operation Mincemeat:
The UK is the USA now, the Spaniards the Russians, and the Germans the Iraqis.
[Aside]
It is still a wonder to me how the fascists in Spain were not disposed after the war when evidence surfaced they gave information to the Germans when Spain was officially neutral in WWII.
The only french “official” I’ve seen appearing on the lists published so far was Charles Pasqua, a former Interior minister(*), who had no official position at the time of the beginning of the Irak war, and who, besides, is a sworn ennemy of Chirac. So, I fail to see how he would have had any influence on France’s position.
The other names I read on these lists where either unknown to me or bussinessmen.
So, I’d like you to elaborate about how the documents you’re refering to explain anything at all.
(*) Who happens to be the french politician I hated the most, due to his policies, his involvment in highly dubious covert operations, the high likehood of him having been corrupt (not even counting the Iraki Oil issue), etc…
Actually, I fail to see why any further explanation is needed, given that France had tons of reasons to be opposed to the war in Irak.
Sorry, I forgot to cite that.
More Iraq Documents from ABC News Analysts:
Another interesting document, just for fun:
Interesting that the “editors notes” in that ABC story reported the incorrect claim that Saddam expelled the inspectors back in 1998.
Yes. Especially since US companies apparently received more kickbacks from it than everyone else in the world. Funny, that.
Without listing all the reasons for my opinion. I think we the people are constantly being manipulated. Do I know all the facts in this case? No. Do I know all the facts of any cases? No. It is the nature of modern era government to manipulate. They have to try and scare us. Inflated interest over stupid stuff that doesn’t matter. Not a word about many thousands being butchered while the slight of hand crying over education and health care distracts us. That stuff isn’t even hard to do, it doesn’t take money to teach people. You or I could set up a health care system, the hard part would prying the hands off the controls. Ya gotta get beyond network corporate sponsered news to find out anything close to truth. You’re right about one thing, most people don’t want to know