Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile

[Ferre]

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]

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

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]

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

[Ferre]

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]

That is true...

[Ferre]

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

[Rankenstein]

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

[Ferre]

...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.

[John Scott]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

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

I don't think he was suggesting we paid him off, I think he was suggesting to take a billion with him from Iraqi resources, which they had plenty off and which would have been a cheaper way of getting rid of him than what the people are paying now. afterall those hundreds of billions for this war have to be paid by someone and it's not the US government who pays it, they get their money from the people, it's the people who pay this.

I am curious about the athenticy of those memos too, but the Downing street memos were real and Spanish newspapers (even left wing papers) have their own integrity too, they would loose credibility if they lie about such a thing and I don't believe they would. For now I just assume those papers are real.

Besides, the Egyptian government told the press that Saddam was willing to go in exile only a couple of days before the invasion, I read that in the newspapers in Holland but I didn't see any of it in english language news or on the internet in the english language, I have no idea if that was published in english somewhere but I have definately read it, which makes this story not at all unbelievable for me.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

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

Indeed.

[John Scott]

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]

Originally Posted by Ferre

I don't think he was suggesting we paid him off, I think he was suggesting to take a billion with him from Iraqi resources, which they had plenty off and which would have been a cheaper way of getting rid of him than what the people are paying now.

Well, yeah, I think it's always best to reward mass murderers instead of putting them on trial.