Russians Told Iraqi Regime of U.S. Troop Movements

But was it real intel or misleading>????

from JoeUser Forums

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russia's ambassador in Baghdad gave intelligence on U.S. military movements to Iraq's government in the opening days of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, a Pentagon report stated on Friday, quoting from captured Iraqi documents.

The unclassified 210-page report by the U.S. military's Joint Forces Command cited an April 2, 2003, document from the Iraqi minister of foreign affairs to President Saddam Hussein as stating the Russian ambassador to Baghdad had funneled strategic intelligence on U.S. plans to Saddam's government.

The document was written about two weeks after the invasion but before U.S. soldiers and Marines entered the capital.

Another Iraqi document, dated March 24, 2003, referred to Russian "sources" inside the U.S. military's Central Command headquarters in Qatar.

The allegations about the actions of Russia were based on captured documents from an Iraqi government on the verge of being toppled, and the report did not present any further documentation of the allegations.

The intelligence provided by the ambassador, the report stated, was that U.S. forces were moving to cut off Baghdad from the south, east and north, and the heaviest concentration of troops -- 12,000 of them, plus 1,000 vehicles -- was near Kerbala, 68 miles southwest of the capital.

The ambassador also told the Iraqis that "the Americans were going to concentrate on bombing in and around Baghdad, cutting the road to Syria and Jordan and creating 'chaos and confusion' to force the residents of Baghdad to flee," the report stated.

It said the U.S. assault on Baghdad would not begin before the arrival of the Army's 4th Infantry Division -- which Turkey had barred from entering Iraq from the north via Turkish territory -- around April 15. In fact, Baghdad fell about a week before that date.

"Significantly, the regime was also receiving intelligence from the Russians that fed suspicions that the attack out of Kuwait was merely a diversion," the report stated, citing the March 24 document.

OIL BEHIND RUSSIAN MOVES?

The purpose of the report was to assess the Iraqi view of events from March to May 2003, based on interviews with senior Iraqi officials and numerous documents.

Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Cucolo of U.S. Joint Forces Command told a briefing he viewed Russia's actions as "driven by economic interests." The report noted Russian business interests in Iraqi oil.

Cucolo said the intelligence from Russia "was only a small part of Saddam's calculus on the decisions he should make and the actions he should take."

"It was (Saddam) counting on other members of the international community to assist him in any way that he saw fit to get what he wanted," Cucolo said.

The report said the March 24 document stated, "The information that the Russians have collected from their sources inside the American Central Command in Doha is that the United States is convinced that occupying Iraqi cities are (sic) impossible, and that they have changed their tactic," to avoid entering cities.

The report did not contain allegations reported by The New York Times last month that German intelligence agents in Baghdad obtained a copy of Saddam's plan to defend the Iraqi capital and passed it to U.S. commanders before the invasion.

There is a longer, classified version of the report. Officials said on Friday they could not confirm or deny whether the allegations were contained in that version.

The report painted Saddam as convinced the United States would not launch a ground invasion that would seriously threaten his rule, believing the Americans too squeamish about casualties, and that an internal coup was a bigger threat.

The report also dealt with the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. President George W. Bush cited the threat posed by such weapons as the prime justification for the invasion. No such weapons ever were found.

The report said that for months after the invasion, some senior officials of Saddam's government continued to think it was possible Iraq had a WMD capability hidden away.

It stated that "the public confidence of so many Western governments, especially based on CIA information, made at least one senior (Iraqi) official believe the contention that Iraq possessed such weapons might be true," citing a classified intelligence report.

5,698 views 23 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they hadn't actually given real info, I would have thought maybe they were helping us by misleading Hussein. They gave him real, damaging information though, only Hussein didn't use it.

It pretty much displays that the interests abroad who opposed the war weren't thinking of the Iraqi people, but Hussein's regime and the money they were going to make off it. He would have been been out from under sanctions and rearmed within 10 years. Then instead of invading a pushover, we'd be facing something worse than what we faced in the Gulf war.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe it was Bush that said he looked into the sole of the Russian leader and that he could deal with him. I wonder what Bush thinks NOW? Another error by Bush.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sole is a fish. I think you mean soul. Regardless, we've been betrayed by our allies quite often. Sad considering folks like you wept crocodile tears that we offended these "allies" by not respecting their wishes. In the end you'll always end up advocating those who hate us, because in the end you hate Bush as much as they do. You have the same cause, really.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe it was Bush that said he looked into the sole of the Russian leader and that he could deal with him.


Don't believe he ever said he could trust him completely to always act in the interests of the United States. "Dealing with him" is something else.

But you know that. Typical of you to twist this around & try to spear Bush with it, and perfectly demonstrative of your closed mind.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sole is a fish

It is also the bottom of your foot, about the level that the Klinker comes up to in intelligence.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

It is also the bottom of your foot


I am not a good shopper. When I go to buy shoes, I pick two that I believe are right (and the right size) and go find a female assistant and ask her if she thinks that these two shoes belong together. I usually pick two shoes that do belong together, but I am never sure.

If she answers yes, I buy the shoes.

If she looks at me like the question doesn't make sense, I happily announce that I didn't mean "belong together" in the relationship sense, although I did hear that shoes have soles.


I _love_ using well-known puns in real life! And I begin to think that the few details about my off-line life I occasionally give away do contrast somewhat with my political blogs.


Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Financially speaking, Russia had a lot to lose with the overthrow of Saddam. I can totally see why they would provide Iraq with key information that would help them withstand an American invasion. Whether that means that Russia can never be trusted, oh well. All nations do this: ACT IN THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS.

We certainly do it.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Aside from the fact that the Russians deny this report, I wouldn't trust any kind of "intel" coming from the Pentagon. Besides, it's a red herring[not "sole"] since the so-called strategy was pretty much telegraphed by the US beforehand with "shock and awe."
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

If she looks at me like the question doesn't make sense, I happily announce that I didn't mean "belong together" in the relationship sense, although I did hear that shoes have soles.


I _love_ using well-known puns in real life! And I begin to think that the few details about my off-line life I occasionally give away do contrast somewhat with my political blogs.

!

Thanks!  I enjoyed the pun, and laugh.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

it's a red herring[not "sole"]

This has become a pun fest!  Thanks!

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I wouldn't trust any kind of "intel" coming from the Pentagon"


Excellent way to build a stance that no one can touch. Oddly, it's usually your side that condemns conservatives for blindly dismissing information because of where it comes from.

We're called upon to believe bad photocopies of dubious provenance first seen on Dem activist sites, but information that comes out of the Pentagon isn't reliable. In that case, lets just stop posting any proof of anything, since all the other side can do is dismiss it as meaningless.

We live in inner earth, you know, and are ruled by aliens. Anyone who tells you differently is in on it.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
no good ever comes from referring publicly to the leader of another nation as 'pootie-poo'.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
" no good ever comes from referring publicly to the leader of another nation as 'pootie-poo'.


LMAO. I wouldn't say that. Pretense is the stick up the ass of diplomacy, in my opinion. Be what you are, and then at least people will hate you honestly, and not for something you aren't.

What did Shakespeare say? "Call your ally pootie-poot, and thou canst not then be false to any man."?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Steven:
I wouldn't trust any kind of "intel" coming from the Pentagon.

And whose intel would you trust? That's a nice, pithy statement, but where's your alternate resource? If not the US government, then who? I mean, who else has invested the time, energy, money, resources, manpower, facilities, collection effort, and anything else I can think of that can parallel the intelligence community of the United States Government?

Or, to echo Baker,
We're called upon to believe bad photocopies of dubious provenance first seen on Dem activist sites, but information that comes out of the Pentagon isn't reliable.

That is another nice pithy statement, and one that I agree with.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pithy Singrdave:Whether trustworthy or not, what is its significance since the world knew very well what we were up to? And, Baker with all the intel snafus from Clinton to the present, there will be little trust without first cleaning house.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thank you for correcting my use of Soul. Every time you attempt to deflect the issues I raise as my dislike for Bush you avoid the issue. The points I raise show the RESULTS of the policies he is using. You make the connection as NEGATIVE. In most cases I agree the RESULTS of the Bush policies have NOT done what we need and have not solved the issues at hand. That has NOTHING to do with my feelings for Bush as a person. I just provide accurate input as to the RESULTS that his policies are achieving!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Every time you attempt to deflect the issues I raise as my dislike for Bush you avoid the issue.

Okay, COL. I'll give you credit for making my coworkers think I'm thoroughly crazy (instead of just mildly disturbed like I'd convinced them I was). I just started laughing so hard at this hypocritical comment, that they're all now convinced that I'm completely out of my ever-lovin' mind!

COL, all you ever do is deflect issues away from any argument that gets anywhere near your sacred cow of "Bush Baaaad".

Now, on topic ...

The fact that the Russians had a mole in place to provide them information (while sad) does not surprise me. And the fact that they gave that information to Saddam, again, does not surprise me. What does surprise me is the number of people that think the KGB lost effectiveness when they were renamed after the fall of communism there. It also surprises me that people think that Russia would not do what it thinks is in the best interests of Russia. If they did anything BUT that, now, that would have surprised me. As has been stated repeatedly, all countries look out for THEIR best interests, first and foremost.

On the topic of not trusting any info/intelligence that comes out of the Pentagon ... I don't really trust it either, but I'd give their information more creedance than anything that's put out by the DNC (or the RNC, for that matter).
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Every time you attempt to deflect the issues I raise as my dislike for Bush you avoid the issue.

Okay, COL. I'll give you credit for making my coworkers think I'm thoroughly crazy (instead of just mildly disturbed like I'd convinced them I was). I just started laughing so hard at this hypocritical comment, that they're all now convinced that I'm completely out of my ever-lovin' mind!

COL, all you ever do is deflect issues away from any argument that gets anywhere near your sacred cow of "Bush Baaaad".

Now, on topic ...

The fact that the Russians had a mole in place to provide them information (while sad) does not surprise me. And the fact that they gave that information to Saddam, again, does not surprise me. What does surprise me is the number of people that think the KGB lost effectiveness when they were renamed after the fall of communism there. It also surprises me that people think that Russia would not do what it thinks is in the best interests of Russia. If they did anything BUT that, now, that would have surprised me. As has been stated repeatedly, all countries look out for THEIR best interests, first and foremost.

On the topic of not trusting any info/intelligence that comes out of the Pentagon ... I don't really trust it either, but I'd give their information more creedance than anything that's put out by the DNC (or the RNC, for that matter).
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thank you for correcting my use of Soul. Every time you attempt to deflect the issues I raise as my dislike for Bush you avoid the issue.



Col...maybe you just didn't see the rest of Baker's post (or....any of his posts where your incoherant nonsense is thrown all around?), but Bake went on to counter whatever Bash Bush Bus you were driving....AGAIN....just like Baker always does....ALWAYS....AGAIN....
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Friends' are always as close as your pocketbook

Maybe I am mistaken but wasn't it the Russians who were at conflict with Iraq before we became interested in the Black Gold? I am certain that our efforts for influence in Central Asia must feel like a black eye as well. With all this going on I don't see how anyone could consider Russia remotely an ally with our hands in the cookie jar.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe I am mistaken but wasn't it the Russians who were at conflict with Iraq before we became interested in the Black Gold


Huh? Why is it always about getting cheap oil? It took me $22 bucks yesterday to fill up my 10-gallon tank. If we went to war for cheaper oil, we sure picked a bad reason.

I'm not surprised to hear that the Russians aided and abbetted the enemy. They weren't enemies, after all, they were business partners. We should expect the same, perhaps more of such, from the Frogs.

No vendor wants their buyer to go out of business. That's Capitalism, and though it's wrong on a certain level, I'm happy to hear that the Russkies are embracing the ideals that made America great.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Huh? Why is it always about getting cheap oil?


I never said it was about cheaper oil.
I read somewhere that we could actually produce and refine the oil much cheaper in the US vs the Middle East. I don't see it so much about oil as I do about global influence. Like the days of land control it is about commodity control. Control the most oil, control most of the world. That's Capitalism at it's finest.

Just my two cents
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
never said it was about cheaper oil.
I read somewhere that we could actually produce and refine the oil much cheaper in the US vs the Middle East. I don't see it so much about oil as I do about global influence. Like the days of land control it is about commodity control. Control the most oil, control most of the world. That's Capitalism at it's finest.

Just my two cents


Your right, we could! "If" we could get the "left" and the "greenie weenies" to lay off. When was the last time we built a refinery? The left squashed that. Drill for oil? Can you say ANWAR? Both the left AND the weenies squashed that.