FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Putin’s Helpful Remarks

by GARY LEUPP

Friday, June 18, 2004. About 1:00 p.m.

Now this is really interesting. Vladimir Putin, in response to a journalist’s question during a visit to Kazakhstan, casually confirms an Interfax report, citing an unnamed Russian intelligence officer, that Russia passed on intelligence to the U,S., during the interval between 9-11 and the U.S. invasion, relating to an Iraqi attack threat. “I can confirm,” states the Russian president (and, by the way, former KGB chief), according to CNN, “that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received … information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.”

Wow. Another blockbuster, maybe the biggest yet. Just when the Bushites seem in a corner, their claims of Iraq-al-Qaeda ties effectively discredited by journalists and the 9-11 Commission report, from an unlikely corner comes such welcome succor. And it’s so much better than mere evidence for Saddam-bin Laden cooperation. “Official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States…!”

Voilà! Instant validation for the war; regardless of the true nature of Iraq-al Qaeda relations and the embarrassing WMDs issue. None further needed.

But, some preliminary questions:

Why didn’t Bush or Cheney mention this earlier, given the extraordinary utility of the report, especially in the face of doubts about the Iraqi threat mounting since the first several months of the invasion?

Did the Kremlin find the “information” credible, or was it just passing on “several” reports it might have suspected originated from doubtful sources anxious to encourage U.S. war plans?
Where did the information come from, and will we ever be able to find out if it originated with (say) Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, now on the outs with the Bush administration and suspected of collaborating with Iran?

Did the Russian government tell Washington, “We believe that the Iraqi government plans to attack you, but even so, we oppose your invasion of Iraq”?

Why does Mr. Putin, a very shrewd operator (repeat: former KGB chief), announce this to a journalist in Kazakhstan (following a security meeting with in Tashkent with Chinese, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek and Tajiki leaders designed in part to counter U.S. inroads into Central Asia) at this time?

The CNN story contains an ellipsis: “Russian intelligence several times received … information.” What’s left out of the Putin statement?

Why on earth would Baghdad, after 9-11, while the U.S. was planning to invade and occupy, and while in desperation Baghdad sought to avoid war by offering unprecedented concessions to the U.S., have been planning terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?

How much help does Putin’s statement lend Bush?

What help might Putin, in turn, receive?

Friday, about 5:30 p.m.

The plot thickens. Reuters reports: “Putin’s remarks looked certain to help President Bush, but officials at the State Department expressed bafflement, saying they knew of no such information from Russia.”

“‘Everybody’s scratching their heads,’ said one State Department official, who asked not to be named.”

One possible take on this (just thinking aloud here) is that Putin is trying to help Bush, as Reuters implies, but administration officials lack the alacrity to just fake it and say, “Oh, yeah, we had that information, but because of our bilateral intelligence agreements with Russia were unable to reveal it to the public until the Russians did” or some such nonsense sufficiently plausible to diehard Bush supporters.

As it is, whatever the Bushites do, Putin might be able to say, “Hey, I tried to help you” and thus strive to continue to curry favor as he undertakes controversial actions in Chechnya, and throughout the Russian Federation, which under other circumstances might invite U.S. criticism. He seems politically stronger than Bush right now, and like so many Russians, is a capable chess player. Bush perhaps does not understand chess, and may himself be scratching his head wondering how next to move.

 

 


Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa JapanMale Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
Pete Dolack
Killing Ourselves With Technology
David Krieger
The 10 Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age
Lamont Lilly
Movement for Black Lives Yields New Targets of the State
Martha Rosenberg
A Hated Industry Fights Back
Robert Fantina
Hillary, Gloria and Jill: a Brief Look at Alternatives
Chris Doyle
No Fireworks: Bicentennial Summer and the Decline of American Ideals
Michael Doliner
Beyond Dangerous: the Politics of Climate
Colin Todhunter
Modi, Monsanto, Bayer and Cargill: Doing Business or Corporate Imperialism?
Steve Church
Brexit: a Rush for the Exits!
Matthew Koehler
Mega Corporation Gobbles Up Slightly Less-Mega Corporation; Chops Jobs to Increase Profits; Blames Enviros. Film at 11.
David Green
Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective
Ed Kemmick
Truckin’: Pro Driver Dispenses Wisdom, Rules of the Road
Alessandro Bianchi
“China Will React if Provoked Again: You Risk the War”: Interview with Andre Vltchek
Christy Rodgers
Biophilia as Extreme Sport
Missy Comley Beattie
At Liberty
Ron Jacobs
Is Everything Permitted?
Cesar Chelala
The Sad Truth About Messi
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail