Possible Saddam-Al Qaeda Link Seen in U.N. Oil-for-Food Program

Just FYI, over 1/2 of Russians support Putin, even with his recent moves to stop elections of some governors. I'm guessing you don't read the Russian news all that often, so I wanted you to know.

It is precisely the liberals in Russia who are against Putin, and supporting the chechens. It is precisely the liberals in the UK, like Vanessa Redgrave, who are anti-Putin and pro-chechen. Choose your bedmates carefully.

Russian LIBERALS Say Putin Destroying Democracy, Surrendering to Terrorism

It is completely beyond me what you and some other freepers are doing here, when you would have better support over on DU with your anti-Putin smears.

"It is completely beyond me what you and some other freepers are doing here, when you would have better support over on DU with your anti-Putin smears."

It is called knowing your history. The DU are not upset with Putin, what are you talking about.

Very interesting that when we called for Russian help there was nobody home, too busy attending to their business, now Russia demands we do things their way, nothing new under the sun.

Where of all places on the earth does Russia go to establish a new relationship, that so many want to brag about. The very place on this earth that requires our taxpayer money to exist.

SOME POST-BESLAN COMMENTARY SAYS ALL IS FAIR IN WAR

In an article headlined "Silence of Political Elite Is Deafening," the Moscow Times today (September 10) notes that much of Russia's political elite has "kept painfully quiet" about the Beslan school tragedy -- a function of its fear of "antagonizing the Kremlin," as Igor Bunin, director of the Center for Political Technologies, told the paper.

Still, liberal critics of President Vladimir Putin are blaming him for moving in a more authoritarian direction while failing to deliver on his promises to impose order in the country and defeat Chechen insurgents (see EDM, September 7).

But commentators on the other side of the argument have also weighed in, some defending Putin for continuing to refuse to negotiate with Chechnya's separatists and others calling for more authoritarian measures, both vis-a-vis Chechnya and more generally.

One liberal critic of the Kremlin, Sergei Ivanenko, first deputy chairman of the Yabloko party, called Beslan "a turning point." He explains, "After this, the authorities must realize that the system of power (with the taming of the Duma and the Federation Council and obedient governors) which Putin formed in the name of order and security and was thus supported by many people, in the final analysis resulted in us losing freedom. But neither did we gain security" (Novye izvestiya, September 10).

Garry Kasparov, the chess champion and leader of the Committee 2008: Free Choice democratic opposition group, said Beslan had demonstrated that the Kremlin and Federal Security Service (FSB) are not up to the task of fighting terrorism and protecting Russian citizens. "Today it is clear to everyone that the special services are busy with other, economic functions -- sharing Yukos between themselves, pursuing journalists if they don't do what they're told -- but [there is] not an adequate anti-terrorism policy." Kasparov said he feared Putin's promise of tougher measures to fight terrorism could lead to the FSB not only regaining its Soviet-era size and powers, but also becoming "an all-powerful political body which would control every aspect of life in the country" (Ekho Moskvy, September 8).

On the other side of the argument, former Nezavisimaya gazeta editor- in-chief Vitaly Tretyakov strongly defended Putin's refusal to negotiate with Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov. According to Tretyakov, Chechen independence would create a "bandit" republic that would "swallow" first Ingushetia and then Dagestan and start a war with North Ossetia. This, he wrote, would be followed by Georgia's destruction or fragmentation and a war that would "engulf the whole Caucasus and set fire to south and central Russia." "There no point in even talking to those who do not understand this," Tretyakov argued. "Or does someone want the Balkanization of the Caucasus and the start of Russia's second breakup?" Tretyakov did criticize some of those in power, however, writing that in light of the "Beslan holocaust," Russia's special services and politicians should be ashamed of the fact that Chechen rebel field commander Shamil Basayev is still alive. "International terrorism and any large- scale terrorism cannot be defeated by democratic methods," he wrote (Rossiiskaya gazeta, September 9).

In a commentary headlined, "In accordance with the laws of war-time," Mikhail Leontyev enunciated a similar tough line. "The only possibility for establishing order quickly (and when it is a question of war, it has to be done quickly) is, without question, by strengthening the authoritarian component," he wrote. "There is no other way. And it is possible to do quickly. Unfortunately, I always have the impression that our political leadership -- despite what various comrades love to accuse it of -- is not ready to take harsh measures. It understands the need for these [measures], but is not ready to take genuinely serious steps. I think that this is now his [Putin's] constitutional obligation" (Nezavisimaya gazeta, September 9).

Meanwhile, a poll taken by Yuri Levada's Analytical Center among Moscow residents over September 7-8 found that 59% of them viewed Putin's actions in relation to the Beslan hostage seizure positively, while 28% of the respondents disapproved of his actions. A similar poll taken by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) among Muscovites following the October 2002 Moscow theater siege found that 85% approved of Putin's actions while 10 % disapproved of them. This time, 52% of the Muscovites polled said they approved of the special services' actions in relation to Beslan (82% in 2002) while 38% said they disapproved (13% in 2002). Seventy- seven percent of those polled this time said they do not believe the FSB and Interior Ministry will be able to prevent future terrorist attacks (52% in 2002). In addition, only 14% of those polled this time said they believed media reports about terrorist acts were full and accurate, down from 41% after the October 2002 theater siege.

However, 55% of the Muscovites polled following the Beslan hostage seizure said they are ready to give the law-enforcement organs anti- terrorism powers that could limit civil rights, while 45% said they were against granting them such powers (Kommersant, September 10).

No doubt you have some your own motives, like many here, for hating Putin and wishing for a return to the Cold War. But you may note that quite a few freepers, including myself, are beginning to wonder what those motives are. Distraction from the real enemy, radical islam? Perhaps.

I, personally, am against radical islamic scum, period, and will support all countries and their leaders who are fighting it. This is the threat we need to stay focused on. I do not understand why you and some others here seem to have forgotten that.

Just as interesting as your support of the leftist pro-chechen cause.

Very interesting that when we called for Russian help there was nobody home,

And only Sharon and Israel offered help to Putin with military expertise for his war on chechnya - but you think Putin, after years of hearing us criticize him for those wars, should have rushed to help us? In return for exactly what from us?

Nobody home is a far better choice than constant beratement.

"No doubt you have some your own motives, like many here, for hating Putin and wishing for a return to the Cold War. But you may note that quite a few freepers, including myself, are beginning to wonder what those motives are. Distraction from the real enemy, radical islam? Perhaps.

I, personally, am against radical islamic scum, period, and will support all countries and their leaders who are fighting it. This is the threat we need to stay focused on. I do not understand why you and some others here seem to have forgotten that."

I have read my history. I took notes of what took place, who has done what when where why and with whom. Now I am not a walking history book, however, I watched as Russia did not come forth and help with Iraq.

Putin admitted that he was not for this war on terror, right here in the good old USA. Now he has a problem and he thinks he can dictate the terms of the relationship.

YOU have no idea what INTEL President Bush has. There is obviously something there that causes a cautious walk. Now I never enjoyed the horrific deeds done to the people of the Soviet Union, yet the world has no clue.

There has never been an accounting of Soviet terrorism like what we have learned about Hitler terrorism. WHY is that? Who has kept hidden the terrorism of Stalin? Why?

YOu think you have the right to demand things done your way, WHY?

You display a liberal mind, you think that the US is anti-Putin cause we do not jump when he says to jump. Not all of the reasons come out of the UN'ers in the State Department or CIA mindset.

There are reasons you ignore, stomp your feet and accuse thinks you have no idea what you are talking about.

I do not hate Putin, I just do not trust him, because he turned his back upon us. I have no reason to trust him just because of what he claims. Putin will have to prove himself to be trustworthy, he has not done that and he keeps making the same kind of decisions.

Hmmm, I just read this morning an apology of sorts from Powell for being insensitive in earlier statements to Russia. And an affirmation from both he and Bush, that Putin had the right to
make pre-emptive strikes. Sounded pretty supportive to me.

"Hmmm, I just read this morning an apology of sorts from Powell for being insensitive in earlier statements to Russia. And an affirmation from both he and Bush, that Putin had the right to
make pre-emptive strikes. Sounded pretty supportive to me."

Russia has always has a "pre-emptive strike policy".

Ok so you got Powell apologizing so be happy....

DUH!

I do not hate Putin, I just do not trust him, because he turned his back upon us. I have no reason to trust him just because of what he claims. Putin will have to prove himself to be trustworthy, he has not done that and he keeps making the same kind of decisions.

>>>

Agreed, and Foggy Bottom, starting with Colin Powell, needs a 'cleansing'...

LOL! They never quit. If you're lucky you will get the "Putin gave the crazy North Korean madman advanced missile secrets in the interest of Christianity" line soon.

That one is a hoot.

Denver Post, 17 Sept Putin's move stirs unease

The unsettling thing about Vladimir Putin's decision this week to end the system of direct popular election of regional governors is that it appears to have been part of a deliberate plan by the Russian president to strengthen the Kremlin's grip on political power.

It comes in the wake of several acts of terrorism, including the massacre of hundreds of schoolchildren in southern Russia and the bombing of two planes.

The Russian president suggested that his actions were aimed at strengthening his country to fend off its enemies.

But many world observers have expressed alarm, sensing that Putin's action had little to do with the recent terrorism.

On Monday, Putin called for an end to popular election of regional governors and for parliamentary voting based on party slates, which he largely controls, rather than individuals.

But eliminating those elections seems irrelevant to the cause of fighting terrorism.

The White House at first suggested that Putin's actions were an internal Russian matter.

Later, Secretary of State Colin Powell criticized the KGB alumnus for "pulling back" on democratic reforms in the name of fighting terrorism. Powell said he would register the administration's concerns with Russian leaders at the United Nations next week.

Finally, on Thursday, President Bush himself weighed in, urging the Russian president in a carefully worded message to "uphold the principles of democracy."

The White House is right to be vigilant. Since Putin was elected president in 2000, he has gradually moved Russia back toward more authoritarian rule. He has prosecuted business leaders, suppressed the media, handed out state assets to political allies and canceled energy contracts with foreign companies. (A deal announced this week to combine the state oil company with the Kremlin's largest gas company paves the way for new foreign investment.)

Still, an unidentified Bush administration official was quoted by The New York Times as saying that replacing a vote for individuals with a vote for party slates in parliamentary elections could turn out to be a system used in other democracies. The maneuver would seek to ensure that separatist tendencies in the regions could not gain too much strength.

"Remember that the Russians have always linked separatism to terrorism," the official said. "The question is whether this type of action is going to deal with the real problems they have in dealing with terrorism. The answer to that is probably 'no."'

For now, the world is looking to the Bush administration to send a strong and clear message to Putin. It's to no one's advantage to sit back and watch the re-emergence of a Moscow dictatorship.

Russia opposes resolution backing probe of Iraq oil-for-food program

The Associated Press Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET April 16, 2004

Russia said Friday it strongly opposes a U.N. resolution endorsing an investigation of the U.N. oil-for-food program which diplomats say former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is insisting on before agreeing to chair the inquiry.

Russia’s Deputy Ambassador Gennady Gatilov said a letter from the Security Council to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on March 31 pledging cooperation with the inquiry into allegations of corruption and urging all countries to do likewise was sufficient for the panel to start work.

“We don’t mind for the secretary-general to appoint the commission, but we don’t see the need to support his decision in the form of a resolution,” Gatilov told The Associated Press.

Russian companies will undoubtedly come under scrutiny in any oil-for-food investigation because they were major buyers of Iraqi oil and major suppliers of humanitarian goods to the program. It allowed the former Iraqi regime to sell unlimited quantities of oil provided the money went primarily to buy humanitarian goods and pay reparations to victims of the 1991 Gulf War.

Gatilov said Russia doesn’t want “to look backwards into the history, and to stir up the old issue of the humanitarian program, which is closed.” He also said creating the panel isn’t “strictly speaking the issue of the Security Council” because it doesn’t relate to maintaining international peace and security.

Under the oil-for-food program, which began in December 1996 and ended in November, Saddam Hussein’s government decided on the goods it wanted, who should provide them and who could buy Iraqi oil — but a U.N. committee monitored the contracts.

The United Nations confirmed Friday that Volcker and two others were prepared to serve on the panel but indicated “that a Security Council resolution would be extremely helpful for the work of the inquiry.”

Diplomats said it was Volcker who was insisting on the resolution — not the two other prospective panelists — apparently because the investigation will include the U.N. Secretariat, which the secretary-general heads, as well as dealings with governments and companies.

Volcker’s office said he had no comment on the panel.

The allegations of corruption first surfaced last January in the Iraqi newspaper Al-Mada. The newspaper had a list of about 270 former government officials, activists and journalists from more than 46 countries suspected of profiting from Iraqi oil sales that were part of the U.N. program.

Annan launched an internal inquiry into the allegations in February but canceled it in March to allow a broader, independent examination that will also cover dealings with governments as well as companies and other entities that signed contracts with the United Nations or with Iraq.

Many U.S. lawmakers, who are conducting their own investigation, have expressed skepticism about the U.N.’s ability to create an independent panel that could implicate some of its own high-ranking officials. So U.S. diplomats pressed for an American to lead the panel, and backed Volcker, who has a reputation for integrity and fairness.

U.S. Deputy Ambassador James Cunningham said the United States supports Annan’s initiative.

“We want the investigation to start soon and to be effective, and if it’s useful to have the council support that, then we think it would be a good thing to do,” he said. “Even a resolution that codified ... the council’s concern about the allegations, the council’s interest in seeing that they be adequately addressed, and the council’s support for the panel could be useful for the panel in its operations.”

Gatilov said he expects the president of the Security Council, Germany’s U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, to inform Annan of Russia’s opposition. He said there is no draft resolution yet and refused to say whether Russia would use its veto.

U.N. associate spokeswoman Marie Okabe confirmed Friday that Annan had chosen a three-member panel: Volcker, former Yugoslav war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone of South Africa and Swiss criminal law professor Mark Pieth, who is an expert in money laundering for the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

At a meeting Thursday, she said, Annan told council president Pleuger and ambassadors from the five permanent council nations — the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain — that the prospective panelists indicated a resolution “would be extremely helpful for them to carry out this inquiry.”

But Okabe said “the panel will not be formally announced before the Security Council members reach a decision” on a resolution.

Russia has always has a "pre-emptive strike policy

Snce 1991, you mean, when they became Russia? Only under Yeltsin, actually.

"Snce 1991, you mean, when they became Russia? Only under Yeltsin, actually."

Again it has always been the policy whether it was Soviet control or Yeltsin or Putin. Our liberals never complained when this was their policy, but they squealed like stuck pigs when President Bush uttered those world.

Old Europe sucked in their breath and have yet to exhale.

those world. ?? You meant, those words?

Truly amazing. Not sure there are enough loyal Americans still in America to stay the course.

I'm not worried in that regard. Most American's aren't fooled by Putin, some the rest will have no doubts either. Keep in mind that even at the height of the cold war America had the same tired people saying that same things about whoever the current Soviet leader was. The Soviets have never had a hard time finding willing tools and simply dupes.

bmp

I don't know we elected the Clintons twice..... He probably could win again if he could get that law changed.