# Russia had evidence that Saddam planned terrorist attacks against U.S. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 18, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054 "2004-06-18T15:58:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/81 "2004-06-20T16:23:54Z")
Te whole “multilateral” argument against Bush was based on that he didn’t get support from “new” KGB, neo-Maoists and sleazy right-wing French crook. Those were the only three that stood between Bush and UN resolution. Now that “new” KGB turned tail, who do you have left to rely upon, lefties? And who is the next to betray your ardent hopes? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/82 "2004-06-20T16:25:39Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Now that “new” KGB turned tail How in thie nine bloody hells did he “turn tail?” He specifically said that his position is unchanged. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/83 "2004-06-20T16:32:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Those were the only three that stood between Bush and UN resolution. False. The U.S. never came close to persuading even a simple majority on the Security Council to vote for Bush’s illegal war. Granted, France and China threatened vetoes, but our lies could not even persuade enough other countries to our side to compel France and China to use their vetoes. “Only three”? Trying to re-write history does not change the facts. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/84 "2004-06-20T17:13:24Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Te whole “multilateral” argument against Bush was based on that he didn’t get support from “new” KGB, neo-Maoists and sleazy right-wing French crook. Why would people want to have a more multilateral coalition? Is there any way that it could help the US? > [@New Iskander](#): > > Those were the only three that stood between Bush and UN resolution. The veto threats notwithstanding there weren’t enough votes for it to pass anyway. So really it was those three and most of the rest of the UNSC that “stood between Bush and UN resolution.” ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/85 "2004-06-20T18:23:05Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Speaking of wild hypotheticals… Let me get this straight - Bush cut a private deal with Putin to have Putin lie (in a very falsifiable way if his intelligence agency contradicts him or the official Bush supposedly thanked claims it never happened), to help Bush with his re-election, and in return Bush is going to pull strings after the election to award a lucrative contract of some sort to someone close to Putin, but whom we currently can’t identify? Actually, I don’t see how his scenario necessarily relies on Putin lying. It just relies on Putin giving a “not-lie” (as **SimonX** has coined the term) which his statement as given could certainly be. Who doubts that Russian intelligence might have heard some things about Iraq launching terrorist attacks against the U.S.? They also, I would venture, heard some things about aliens landing in Siberia. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/86 "2004-06-20T18:27:19Z")
Indeed. One of Fearless Misleaders most magic moments. You remember, don’t you? How he swore mightily that he would proceed with the SC vote regardless, that he wanted everybody’s “cards on the table”. Then the guy at the White House who knows arithmetic added up the numbers and showed him the embarrasing facts. Poof! it never happened, and he never said it. It was a bold and decisive moment in statesmanship, it just _looked_ like he was slinking away with his tail between his legs. Good thing Kerry wasn’t there, huh? He would have flip-flopped. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/87 "2004-06-20T20:41:10Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Actually, I don’t see how his scenario necessarily relies on Putin lying. It just relies on Putin giving a “not-lie” (as **SimonX** has coined the term) which his statement as given could certainly be… One of them-there “not-lies” like Clinton! ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/88 "2004-06-20T21:09:09Z")
…Oh – and since I don’t know what a “not lie” is or isn’t — my not-intuition leads me to this conclusion – I’ll not be using this new creation - _the “not lie” concept_. I’ll continue to say that Putin has either provided information with the intent to mislead or he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/89 "2004-06-20T21:49:25Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > One of them-there “not-lies” like Clinton! Yes, because Clinton getting blow-jobs is of _real_ importance! Who cares what happens in all them foreign countries anyway? This was possible _sex_, in the White House! You silly lefties, you’ve got your priorities all messed up! ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/90 "2004-06-21T00:00:48Z")
> [@Master Wang-Ka](#): > > At any rate, the question is: DID SADDAM PLAN TERRORIST ACTIVITY AGAINST THE US? > > I wouldn’t be at all surprised. We know he tried to arrange for the assassination of Bush Sr. more than a decade ago. Am I being whooshed here, **Master Wang-Ka**? The assassination story has been proven to be a myth - here’s [Seymour Hersh’s investigation](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02) in the New Yorker. Saddam had no reason to plan terrorist acts against the US. Sure, he must have hated them for what he would have seen as a betrayal, but in Saddam’s world, Saddam came first. He wouldn’t endanger himself by instigating terrorist acts - such acts would have got him nothing if they succeeded and would have involved a colossal risk of a US invasion / assassination of himself etc. So, no upside, and one hell of a potential downside. On Putin’s comments, they sure sound suspicious to me. But I’ll wait for full information before entirely dismissing or accepting them. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/91 "2004-06-21T01:17:29Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Te whole “multilateral” argument against Bush was based on that he didn’t get support from “new” KGB, neo-Maoists and sleazy right-wing French crook. “maoist” - you’re at least a decade too late to find a Maoist in China. Got a cite for the French crook thing? Rest of that post has already be debunked. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/92 "2004-06-21T01:49:37Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > …Oh – and since I don’t know what a “not lie” is or isn’t — my not-intuition leads me to this conclusion – I’ll not be using this new creation - _the “not lie” concept_. I’ll continue to say that Putin has either provided information with the intent to mislead or he didn’t. A ‘not-lie’ is a subspecies of something known as a [negative](http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=-hospital+-hiv+-virus+-pregnancy+%22negative+pregnant%22) [pregnant](http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=-hospital+-hiv+-virus+-pregnancy+%22negative+pregnant%22+site%3A.gov+OR+site%3A.edu) ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/93 "2004-06-21T02:11:01Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > A ‘not-lie’ is a subspecies of something known as a [negative](http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=-hospital+-hiv+-virus+-pregnancy+%22negative+pregnant%22) [pregnant](http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=-hospital+-hiv+-virus+-pregnancy+%22negative+pregnant%22+site%3A.gov+OR+site%3A.edu) OK – I got it straight now — Putin told us a “not-lie” and a “not-lie” is a subspecies of a “negative pregnant.” What was it exactly that Putin said that constitutes one of these “not-lies?” ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/94 "2004-06-21T02:20:52Z")
I think one idea of a “not-lie” is to attribute something to someone else. For example, Putin can say that “Russian intelligence has heard reports that…” which is technically true if they heard such reports whether or not the reports themselves were at all credible. (Or, in another example, the Bush Administration could “truthfully” say “British intelligence has reported…” when in fact they already knew at the time that such reports were not credible.) ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/95 "2004-06-21T02:41:18Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > I think one idea of a “not-lie” is to attribute something to someone else. For example, Putin can say that “Russian intelligence has heard reports that…” which is technically true if they heard such reports whether or not the reports themselves were at all credible. (Or, in another example, the Bush Administration could “truthfully” say “British intelligence has reported…” when in fact they already knew at the time that such reports were not credible.) Wish you would have posted that before I read that linked legalese! But to your post — Putin didn’t go undercover himself so, of course, the information would be coming from Russian intelligence. No one is being fooled by Putin’s cleverness here. No ‘not lies’ yet I assume. Now ------ if Putin knows the reports either aren’t credible or have highly questionable credibility and doesn’t mention **this** highly relevant information – he is either intentionally misleading – which is a lie — or at best, grossly negligent — So, I’ll just continue with the old fashion _“intent to mislead”_ – but hell, never mind me - I’m from Mississippi. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/96 "2004-06-21T05:00:38Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > OK – I got it straight now — Putin told us a “not-lie” and a “not-lie” is a subspecies of a “negative pregnant.” What was it exactly that Putin said that constitutes one of these “not-lies?” I don’t know if Putin did or not. It seems well within the bounds of probability that what he said is technically correct. Without further details, it’s hard to come to much more of conclusion about what he said than that IMHO. There’re several ways of reconciling the various sets of facts. I _suspect_ that if there was a great deal of significance to the reports that _someone_ would’ve mentioned them before now. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/97 "2004-06-21T11:39:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > To save your life, you could not come up with a cite of me praising Russia, China, and/or France as “paragons of international ethics”. > > Nor could you, for a million bucks and an opportunity to perform unnatural acts with my chihuahua, find any instance of me praising Mr. Putin. > > Lastly, I suggest a course of humor enhancing steroids, should such be available. I was (rather mildly) tweaking **Sam, the Canadian Eagle** for a presumed reliance upon the trustworthiness of Mr. Putin. It was a put-on, a jape, a jocularity…in your case, a “whoosh”. Have you considered taking a course in Post-Modernist Irony? 'Cause those of us with a sense of humor are having a much better time than you are. Trust me on this. Sam was taking Putin at his word, and you said that Sam is defending Putin, fact? Weren’t you and many others like you taking Putin at his word for about the last two years? Now once Sam has done something however remotely similar, you all suddenly remembered Putin’s KGB pedigree and general Rooskies brutal deviousness. However, when _you_ were taking Rooskies actions for granted, as long as they were directed against Bush, you didn’t express any qualms. What if Rooskies were playing you for suckers all this time? What if they were undermining US president efforts and conducting a policy always in complete disregard and often in direct opposition to US interests, all this time? What if Bush was more concerned about US interests than Putin was, all this time? We never heard this from you, as long as Putin was against Bush on Iraq. And you are still giving Chinese and French a pass, even now. Yet you will suddenly remember them for what they really are, as soon as they will make up with Bush. And then you’ll blame the whole thing on some conservative scapegoat, grasping at remotest connection. And then you’ll find some other scumbag to extoll in your noble fight against Bush. Because you don’t fight on principles; you only fight on perceptions, which can be always discarded and substituted at a moment’s notice. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/98 "2004-06-21T11:51:47Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Why would people want to have a more multilateral coalition? I don’t know about all the people, but most people here, who “want to have a more multilateral coalition”, want it so they can hang more dogs on Bush for “failing” to forge one. If he did forge it, they would say that he is joining with new-KGB, neo-Maoists and French politicos to snuff the freedom in the world. > [@SimonX](#): > > How would it help the US? I can’t see how would it help US. Same US soldiers and Iraqis would die under same circumstances. Except that we might have had change of gov’ts in Paris and Berlin by now, if Chirac and Shroeder joined US in the coalition. So it might have hurt us, actually. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/99 "2004-06-21T12:59:19Z")
Is it possible that Saddam had a rather successful disinformation programme up and running? A good percentage of people were of the impression that he might have had the ability to develop WMD, but it turns out he didn’t. It didn’t stop Saddam from trying to scare the West into thinking he did. Thats the thing with Dictators. If you want to keep your populace’s anger directed away from you, it’s always good to have someone else to blame for their suffering. It was in Saddam’s interest to keep the West pissed at him, because it meant he stayed in power. He could easily have been putting out lines of disinformation (he could even have been playing Chabli for a fool) by spreading rumors. It’s the Bravado of knowing he was pissing off the West that added to his image in front of his people. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054/100 "2004-06-21T13:23:09Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Sam was taking Putin at his word, and you said that Sam is defending Putin, fact? Weren’t you and many others like you taking Putin at his word for about the last two years?..Because you don’t fight on principles; you only fight on perceptions, which can be always discarded and substituted at a moment’s notice. Congratulations! You have acheived the ultimate! One hundred percent _ad hominem_ slur and innuendo, untarnished by so much a single fact, link, cite or reference! I know what it is! There were too many, right? You started to stack up all the cites of me loudly declaiming my admiration for Putin, and they simply overwhelmed you. Stunned by thier massive number, you reeled away in gasping astonishment. Which is why you didn’t bring any such cites. Yes, that certainly explains the entire lack of substantiation. When you know you’re right, why bother with tiresome facts? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russia-had-evidence-that-saddam-planned-terrorist-attacks-against-u-s/251054.md?page=6)