This is my personal view and comments on the issues and events that I feel a need to talk about or express my view. You don't have to agree, but lets carry on a adult, discussion and maybe you will see it the right way, mine. ;)
But was it real intel or misleading>????
Published on March 25, 2006 By ShadowWar In War on Terror

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.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 27, 2006
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!
on Mar 27, 2006
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).
on Mar 27, 2006
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).
on Mar 27, 2006
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....
on Mar 27, 2006
'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.
on Mar 27, 2006
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.
on Mar 27, 2006
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
on Mar 28, 2006
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.
2 Pages1 2