Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 03/24/2006 View Thu 03/23/2006 View Wed 03/22/2006 View Tue 03/21/2006 View Mon 03/20/2006 View Sun 03/19/2006 View Sat 03/18/2006
1
2006-03-24 Iraq
Iraqi Docs: Ruskie Ambassador Gave Saddam US Invasion Plans
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Captain America 2006-03-24 00:06|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 BUGS BUNNY > "Of course you know this means war", i.e. no glazed Chicken or Christina videos, etc. for our always loyal friend for democracy the Russian Ambassador.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-03-24 00:15||   2006-03-24 00:15|| Front Page Top

#2 So, some major spies were reporting from CentCom.

UK, US, combo or what?

Somebody needs to hang.
Posted by 3dc 2006-03-24 00:50||   2006-03-24 00:50|| Front Page Top

#3 How good of a pre-brief did the Ruskis get? Did he just give them the Official Ruski brief? Did he make 1.5 million off of Putin's brief? He may not be worried about Western opinion at this point.

Also, I would be very interested in his positioning information. Depending on how he presented it, it will help find the source.

And doesn't this make Saddam out to be one fucking horrendous general? But just like getting the test answers before the midterm, if the topic is way above your head, it really doesn't matter, your still going to fail miserably.

Maybe he got the plan of the 4th ID coming out of Turkey and he couldn't adjust.

At this point in the game, even if you had pictures of Osama doing a Monica Lewinsky on Saddam it wouldn't change anyone's opinion on Al Qaeda and Saddam. It's a waste of time to even try.
Posted by Penguin 2006-03-24 01:30||   2006-03-24 01:30|| Front Page Top

#4 Goodness... The docs are getting juicier.

Now there's some absolutely undeniable treason to snoop out. Our Mystery Guest and Rocky and Pinky and the Gang can all share a cell block. I'd love to see the Tsar's face about now. I guess this means the Russkies can expect to be left sniffing fumes on Iran and everything thing else we ever do again until Hell Freezes Solid. Good. Always hated those bastards.

"Smoking Guns! Get yer Smoking Guns here!"

Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of As The Worm Turns...
Posted by Jans Snomble4884 2006-03-24 01:43||   2006-03-24 01:43|| Front Page Top

#5 Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh

And one month after that meeting was the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2006-03-24 04:27||   2006-03-24 04:27|| Front Page Top

#6 So, some major spies were reporting from CentCom.

UK, US, combo or what?

Press?
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-03-24 07:39|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-03-24 07:39|| Front Page Top

#7 I suspect that the longer our Iran "diplomacy" at the U.N. drags on, the more juicy tidbits about the Russian's role in Iraq will be released. Think of it as an incentive plan.
Posted by Darrell 2006-03-24 08:46||   2006-03-24 08:46|| Front Page Top

#8 And one month after that meeting was the Oklahoma City Bombing
Weird! That was within 40 days of when I got my best goldie Hatfield. That's creepy.
Posted by 6 2006-03-24 09:37||   2006-03-24 09:37|| Front Page Top

#9 I trust the administration takes this seriously and demands lie detector tests for all at CENTCOM.
This leaking shit has got to stop.
Posted by wxjames 2006-03-24 09:57||   2006-03-24 09:57|| Front Page Top

#10 I wouldn't guess espionage. CENTCOM probably officially gave this info to the Russians for several reasons, under the heading of "confidence building", to avoid any misunderstandings; knowing full well that their own satellites would confirm most of it.

They also carefully calculated out that any information provided isn't "operational that cannot be obtained through other means". This means we *assume* that the Russians, and the Chinese, and the French, et al, are ALL going to sell us out.

By giving this information to the villains, with slight differences in content depending on the receipient, we can also determine *who* is selling us out. And it is always better to know for sure that someone is selling you out, rather than to just assume they will sell you out.

This is because that if you *know* somebody is selling you out, at a critical moment you can give them majorly wrong information and know that your enemy will get it, and probably trust it.

This not only can cost your enemy dearly, but might even ruin their relationship with the fink country.

The chess-like complexity of treachery is truly a wonder to behold.
Posted by Anonymoose 2006-03-24 10:14||   2006-03-24 10:14|| Front Page Top

#11 If you read up on Operation Mincemeat ("The Man Who Never Was") and similar classic feats of operational deception, one of the things that strikes you is how much true information has to be mixed in with the deception in order to make the whole thing credible. Without access to CENTCOM's official documents, it might be hard for us amatuers to tell if this was a real leak, or a deception with elements of truth mixed in for verisimilitude.
Posted by Mike 2006-03-24 10:51||   2006-03-24 10:51|| Front Page Top

#12 Keep in mind, folks, the Russians did us the favor of selling the Iraqis those targeting beacons GPS jammers.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-03-24 10:57|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-03-24 10:57|| Front Page Top

#13 Do the Ruskies have Satellites? Do the Rusikes have COMINT? It doesn't have to be a spy or a leak. Maybe they got a galley draft of Newsweek.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-24 11:00||   2006-03-24 11:00|| Front Page Top

#14 I'll go with the others here who are citing this release as just another button on the coat we are fitting Russia for in advance of pull-starting the Iranian turbans.
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-24 11:23||   2006-03-24 11:23|| Front Page Top

#15 6, would that be the goldie who is so fond of invading nanobots? ;-)
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-24 12:13||   2006-03-24 12:13|| Front Page Top

#16 I'm pretty sure we suspected the Ruskies would inform the Iraqis of the 'plan.' I recall that, in his book, Gen Franks said he had reason to believe the 4th ID through Turkey bluff was working. Perhaps this is part of why.
Posted by JAB 2006-03-24 12:21||   2006-03-24 12:21|| Front Page Top

#17 in his book, Gen Franks said he had reason to believe the 4th ID through Turkey bluff was working.

It was a bluff?!?!?!
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-24 16:00||   2006-03-24 16:00|| Front Page Top

#18 Same goldie TW, it's that just too strange? What are the odds? I see multifaceted forces at play.
Posted by 6 2006-03-24 16:04||   2006-03-24 16:04|| Front Page Top

#19 Makes sense tho, gotta remember Hatfields pedigree, Grassy Knoll and Zionist Banker on the Bitch Side - Sire side Lindberghs Baby & Yellow Peril.
Posted by 6 2006-03-24 16:09||   2006-03-24 16:09|| Front Page Top

#20 JAB, et al--Do you have a source for this 4ID-through-Turkey bluff claim?
Posted by Dar">Dar  2006-03-24 17:40||   2006-03-24 17:40|| Front Page Top

#21 Uh, no, that cannot be accurately stated.

We shipped and off-loaded several large cargo carriers full of 4th ID gear onto Turkish docks - effectively taking it out of the fight for 4+ months for a bluff?

We were offering BILLIONS in aid pkgs to Turkey for a bluff?

US-Turkish relations hit the basement floor with a thud for a bluff?

The vote was a mere handful short of approving (less than 10 - out of about 400 - can't remember exact numbers) and it was a bluff?

No, this isn't correct. I saw 50+ articles on the negotiations with Turkey - and it was clearly expected to happen at the beginning and everything deteriorated dramatically toward the end when they voted against allowing passage rights. Even if we knew it would fail before it actually did - the news stories were incessant and virtually all were pestimistic.

No, it simply does not fit with the facts.
Posted by Jans Snomble4884 2006-03-24 18:14||   2006-03-24 18:14|| Front Page Top

#22 I am always impressed by the quality of an organization that can go after Lt. George Bush with blatant forgeries but immediately introduce weasel words when faced with real Iraqi documents. Fake but accurate immediately becomes accurate but fake.
Posted by john">john  2006-03-24 20:46||   2006-03-24 20:46|| Front Page Top

#23 Sorry. I used a poor word. Early on it was our intention to move through Turkey. But, it became clear that Turkey would not play ball. From that point forward, it was a diversion. Certainly this was true in Mar-03. Franks stated in his book that the Iraqis believed it until very late in the war.
Posted by JAB 2006-03-24 22:53||   2006-03-24 22:53|| Front Page Top

23:57 Zhang Fei
23:52 Zhang Fei
23:49 Grealing Grineper7055
23:17 Frank G
23:16 Frank G
23:14 wxjames
23:13 Frank G
23:10 JosephMendiola
22:57 RWV
22:55 Ptah
22:55 Captain America
22:53 JAB
22:52 Eric Jablow
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:50 Captain America
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:18 Inspector Clueso
22:14 JosephMendiola
22:14  Barbara Skolaut
22:14 xbalanke
22:13 DMFD
22:07 JosephMendiola
22:00 Ptah
21:49 Inspector Clueso









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com