Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile

Ferre · 09-27-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.
Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).
The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...icle_id=484162

Ferre · 09-28-2007, 12:49 AM

Bush 'threatened retaliation' against countries that refused to back Iraq war

Quote:

But during the meeting with Aznar, Bush made it clear the US would invade Iraq by the end of March 2003 whether or not there was a UN resolution to authorize it, El Pais reported.
"We have to get rid of Saddam. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be ready militarily. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March," Bush said in the transcript translated into Spanish by the newspaper.
Victory would come "without destruction," he added.

Truth is surfacing, Remember the Downing street memos?

Julie · 09-28-2007, 12:54 AM

I thought he just asked to be allowed to take $1 billion, not be given it.

Ferre · 09-28-2007, 01:27 AM

Either way, it shows that the Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq no matter what, the Downing street memos already showed that the intelligence was "fixed" to provide an excuse, these latest revelations show that even when Saddam offered to go into exile that didn't matter for the Bush administration, aparently they did not want a solution which didn't involve invading Iraq.

It could have saved lives and billions of the American people's tax money, but then again, halliburton&co would have missed all those billions, and Blackwater nearly a trillion, not to mention the oil.

As expected, slowly the truth comes to light.

Julie · 09-28-2007, 01:28 AM

That is true...

Ferre · 09-28-2007, 01:33 AM

If this is true, Bush is a war criminal. (not that we didn't know that already btw)

John Scott · 09-28-2007, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferre

If this is true, Bush is a war criminal. (not that we didn't know that already btw)

LOL! Since he determined to take out Saddam no matter what you thought about it, he's a war criminal? You're making funny, right?

Seriously, when you go around squealing "war criminal" every time somebody looks crossly at another nation, it just diminishes the meaning of the words. It's like the boy who cried wolf. When a real war criminal comes along, nobody will take you serious.

StrongInTheArm · 09-28-2007, 07:00 AM

Well I'm not going to take the Daily Mails' word on anything. This article on third hand information. An unnamed diplomat, a Spanish paper, and now the daily mail. It has not been confirmed by either party to the discussions, the US or the Spanish.

I reserve my judgement until the authenticity of that document is proven.

But to speculate, and that is all this is, if true it is another piece to a very complicated jigsaw puzzle. It was everybody's intention that Saddam should go, the debate was about when and how. This just seems to be his preferred option.

That no one contemplated rewarding the murderer for leaving is no bad thing in the end.

John Scott · 09-28-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

That no one contemplated rewarding the murderer for leaving is no bad thing in the end.

I think the very suggestion that we should have paid him off is insulting to all those innocent people he murdered.

Rankenstein · 09-28-2007, 02:32 AM

Don't forget Blair, he's a war criminal too. Just that he's War Criminal Jr.

Ferre · 09-28-2007, 02:59 AM

...and Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister, he pushed that invasion, and Dutch support (money and troops) down our throats after a couple of visits to the US.

Rankenstein · 09-28-2007, 07:17 AM

So is the fact that we armed him in the first place.

Ferre · 09-28-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

So is the fact that we armed him in the first place.

Indeed.

John Scott · 09-28-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

So is the fact that we armed him in the first place.

Naw. We armed the Soviet Union during the second world war. At the time it was necessary. Gotta do what you gotta do and roll with the punches.

John Scott · 09-28-2007, 08:51 AM

Quote:

What was Bush's ultimate motivation in all this, that is still open to debate

Wanting to finish the job his father started.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, I think a lot of Americans thought we should haev taken Saddam out then and there. Pushing him back out of Kuwait and then going home? It seemed weak.

StrongInTheArm · 09-28-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Wanting to finish the job his father started.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, I think a lot of Americans thought we should haev taken Saddam out then and there. Pushing him back out of Kuwait and then going home? It seemed weak.

There have been many motivations mooted:

The 'unfinished business': I think was part of the story.
WMDs: obviously proven not to exist, can it be said the allies invaded in 'good faith'. Still being debated.
Oil: Still being debated.
Removing a terrorist threat: I don't think Iraq at that time was a breading ground.
Bring democracy to Iraq: I suspect that was more of an excuse.
Remove a despot from power: Job done, but at what cost.

With HINDSIGHT it seems the last was the most legitimate, imho.

John Scott · 09-28-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

# Bring democracy to Iraq: I suspect that was more of an excuse.

Why do you think so?

Most of these people who dedicate their lives to becoming president have extreme megalomania, IMHO. They want to be in textbooks. Most presidents never get written about much. Installing democracy in a nation like Iraq is a good way to ensure that you get into the history textbooks.

In my opinion, Bush is simply trying to make a name for himself.

StrongInTheArm · 09-28-2007, 11:30 AM

I agree with you, making a name for himself is now one of his motivating factors. What else is left to him?

(Don't get me wrong, bringing democracy to Iraq is a laudable goal that is well worth the effort. But the Arab states have no experience or understanding of it. And if it took hold and spread there are a lot of dictators that will be cursing America even more than they are now. I mention this just to emphasis the weight of opposition stacked against democracy in Iraq. There are no Arab states that want to see it succeed.)

America has already spent vast sums on Iraq and there is still little sign of peace within a democratic framework. Without peace democracy will fail. Iraq is ruled by the gun at present, with many sides trying to pull the strings. Will America be able to commit the money and time and resources?

I don't think so. Come the election the new incumbent at the White House will want to extricate themselves from the mess. The question is what happens then? Will the fledgling, enforced democratic system take root, or will Iraq split into two maybe even three separate states. If that happens then 'bringing democracy' has failed because Iraq no longer exists.

That is what I think will happen. I go further and say that the Bush administration thought that this would be the result, hence my description that this was more of an excuse. Peace in Iraq was never the prime objective, it was the sound bite. That is why there was little planning of how Iraq would be run after the invasion. And that is why there was so little in the way of resources and men left in Iraq after the invasion. Currently they are just trying to keep most of Iraq out of Iran's hands.

If I were to be truly cynical, which I'm not, I would say the net achievements have been:
Bush can hold up his hands and say Saddam is gone, Iraq is no longer a threat, we did the best we could. Military bases in many neighbouring countries and in Iraq there for the long term, protecting access to middle east oil. Lucrative reconstruction contracts to American firms. And oil. No matter how much financially America has lost in this, over the long term it will be net winners.

Julie · 09-28-2007, 08:53 AM

He wasn't asking to be paid by the US - he was asking to be allowed to run off and take $1 billion with him. He basically said, supposedly, I'm afraid you're going to defeat me if I put up a fight, so I'll go now if you let me take this money with me.

John Scott · 09-28-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

He wasn't asking to be paid by the US - he was asking to be allowed to run off and take $1 billion with him. He basically said, supposedly, I'm afraid you're going to defeat me if I put up a fight, so I'll go now if you let me take this money with me.

He'd go where? Off to live in impunity? Or to prison and beheading? I don't think the impunity thing would fly with the family of his hundreds of thousands of victims.