| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraqi Docs: Ruskie Ambassador Gave Saddam US Invasion Plans |
| 2006-03-24 |
| "U.S. War Plan Leaked to Iraqis by Russian Ambassador" Documents dated March 5-8, 2003 Two Iraqi documents dated in March 2003 — on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion — and addressed to the secretary of Saddam Hussein, describe details of a U.S. plan for war. According to the documents, the plan was disclosed to the Iraqis by the Russian ambassador. The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units. The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk." The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document. This document also includes an account of an amusing incident in which several Iraqi Army officers (presumably seeking further elaboration of the U.S. war plans) contacted the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and stated that the ambassador was their source. Needless to say, this caused great embarrassment to the ambassador, and the officers were instructed "not to mention the ambassador again in that context." (Editor's Note: The Russian ambassador in March 2003 was Vladimir Teterenko. Teterenko appears in documents released by the Volker Commission, which investigated the Oil for Food scandal, as receiving allocations of 3 million barrels of oil — worth roughly $1.5 million. ) "Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq" A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio. The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states. (Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein. It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor. The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. 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, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.) "Osama bin Laden and the Taliban" Document dated Sept. 15, 2001 An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him: That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America. That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan. That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran. At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear. (ABC News bullshit Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e., an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.) More |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #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 |
| #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 2006-03-24 20:46 |
| #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 |
| #20 JAB, et al--Do you have a source for this 4ID-through-Turkey bluff claim? |
| Posted by: Dar 2006-03-24 17:40 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #15 6, would that be the goldie who is so fond of invading nanobots? ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-24 12:13 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #12 Keep in mind, folks, the Russians did us the favor of selling the Iraqis those |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-24 10:57 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #6 So, some major spies were reporting from CentCom. UK, US, combo or what? Press? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-24 07:39 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |