he lacks the necessary people skills to be able to negotiate such a thing. Just not a high probability that he could do this as we have seen in 1) his relationship with congress 2) his ability to pull a coalition together and 3) his ability to articulate intent.
George Bush could have gotten rid of Saddam and avoided the entire war for a paltry $1b
Revealed: Saddam 'ready to walk away for $1bn'
By Leonard Doylein Washington
Published: 29 September 2007
A transcript of an eve-of-war conversation between President George Bush and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has revealed a previously undisclosed initiative to avert war in Iraq by spiriting Saddam Hussein out of the country.
"Yes, it's possible," Mr Bush told the Spanish leader. "The Egyptians are talking to Saddam Hussein ... He seems to have indicated he would be open to exile if they would let him take one billion dollars and all the information he wants on weapons of mass destruction."
But Mr Bush seems to shrug off the idea, saying "it's also possible he could be assassinated", and he makes made clear that the US would in any case give "no guarantee" for Hussein. "He's a thief, a terrorist and a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa."
The conversation, recorded by Spain's ambassador to the US, Javier Ruperez, and published this week in El Pais, offers a unique insight into Mr Bush's brusque interaction with one of the few foreign leaders he trusted. Here was a leader already on the march towards war, expressing impatience and anger at those that disagreed with him.
Mr Bush does admit that averting war would be "the best solution for us" and "would also save us $50bn," greatly underestimating the cost to the US treasury of nearly five years of warfare. But he also talks of how he planned to exact revenge on countries, that did not back the US in its drive to war.
"We have to get rid of Saddam. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we'll be ready militarily," Mr Bush told Mr Aznar.
It was February 2003 at Mr Bush's Crawford Texas ranch, less than a month before the invasion. Almost 150,000 US troops and their British allies were sitting in the Kuwaiti desert. The troops were well within range of any weapons of mass destruction, military analysts have pointed out.
US administration officials had already prepared public opinion for war by raising fears of Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme and his ability to create "mushroom clouds." But the transcript reveals the two leaders were more concerned about getting a fig leaf of international approval for the war, than any imminent threat from Saddam.
The transcript revolves around Washington's frustrations at failing to get UN Security Council approval for war – the now-famous second resolution.
At the time, both Tony Blair and President Bush were officially open to a diplomatic resolution of the Iraq crisis – including a negotiated exile of Saddam - but the Spanish Ambassador's notes reveal peace was never really an option.
With public opposition to the war in Europe in full swing, Washington's two strongest allies, Mr Aznar and Tony Blair were under intense anti-war pressure.
President Bush needed to appear to be serious about diplomacy to "help us with our public opinion," pleaded Mr Aznar. The hope was that by being seen to looking for alternatives to war, the growing anger against US policy and Europe would be assuaged.
"I'm not asking for infinite patience," Mr Aznar said, but "simply that you do what's possible to get everyone to agree".
Pointing to the internal rows within the White House, where Vice President Dick Cheney was leading the drive to war, Mr Bush said he had gone to the United Nations "despite differences in my own administration" adding that it would be "great" if the proposed second resolution authorising war was successful.
"The only thing that worries me is your optimism," said Mr Aznar who is now a visiting scholar at Georgetown University. "I'm optimistic because I believe I'm right," the President replied. "I'm at peace with myself."
Mr Bush also chastised Europeans for being insensitive to "the suffering that Saddam Hussein has inflicted on the Iraqis" adding rather oddly: "Maybe it's because he's dark-skinned, far away and Muslim – a lot of Europeans think he's okay."
He then attacked Jacques Chirac, who had publicly challenged the US drive to war, saying the Frenchman "sees himself as Mr Arab."
It was at a time when the US right was trying to orchestrate a boycott of French wines and other goods. Restaurants across the US began using the name Freedom Fries instead of French Fries.
In one of the most chilling insights into the hardball politics Mr Bush was playing in order to get his way, he warned that countries which opposed him would pay a price, mentioning the Free Trade Agreement with Chile that is waiting for Senate confirmation and Angola's grants from the Millennium Account.
It would not have been very profitable for Cheney and Bush's friends namely Halliburton and the oil companies.
Halliburton's revenues and profits would have only been in the few millions of dollars rather than the hundreds of billions of dollars they get now largely from Iraq no bid contracts.
As far as the oil companies go....oil would only be in the $30-$40 a barrel range and would not have been anywhere near as profitable as the hundreds of billions of dollars they make in only a single quarter now alone.
That oil would be in the $30-$40bbl range?
he lacks the necessary people skills to be able to negotiate such a thing. Just not a high probability that he could do this as we have seen in 1) his relationship with congress 2) his ability to pull a coalition together and 3) his ability to articulate intent.
Saddam also wanted to keep the documents showing that Bush the Elder and Rumsfeld supplied Saddam with materials to build up his "WMD" arsenal.
That would mean that the invasion and removal of Saddam would clear his family name.
I've always looked at Bush as having multiple reasons for wanting to remove Saddam, with none of them being what he told the public. Moreover, I accuse him of having made up his mind not only before 9/11, but before he was even in office.
I don't think Bush has ever made up his mind about anything. I think his god, "Lord Cheney", told him what his mind was thinking and he went with it because he always listens to god.
Except when he appoints people for important positions. Then he just picks whatever friend is standing closest to him at the time.
"Hey, Harriet, wanna join that SCOTUS thing??"
push for the invasion - he was kinda quiet... on that. and GW did not ask him... leaves me wondering.... and know what, kinda makes me believe that Sr. was a more thoughtful and future vision kinda guy than his irresponsible, dumber spawn.
I'm a pretty die hard liberal, but I liked Bush Sr. I didn't agree with him on everything (probably disagreed with him on most things), but I always thought the was pretty genuine and I give HUGE points for that.
I thought it was pretty terrible when everyone used the "no new taxes" line against him in the elections. The guy tried not to raise taxes, realized he had to, did it, and the country was better for it. Why penalize him for making the right decision? Would you rather he was some hard-headed ignoramus like his son?
You can't win in politics. It's disgusting.
Dubya, Jeb, Neil & Marvin. Of course we know Dubya & Jeb, and we know about Silverado.
Normal families stick together, and I would have a damn hard time believing that Jeb did nothing to help his brother in his state. Eg, they purged the voter rolls without notice before 2000, under the theory that they were gonna dump a lot of convicts & people who hadn't voted recently, and of course it turns out that there were one hell of a lot of erroneous deletions. Purging the rolls is fine, but you don't do it without notice - you don't make people find out on election day, when they can't correct mistakes. The accumulation of dirty tricks like that in key states can turn an election.
I don't see that Neil was any more AFU than many S&L people. I should modify that to note that the S&L mess was pretty much caused by people trying to use their position & knowledge & connections to squeeze a dime out of somebody else's nickel.
But it strikes me as odd that the one who appears to be the biggest 8-ball (eg his DUIs, AWOLs, etc) is the oldest. Doesn't usually work that way.
Now my hat is off to anybody who got his ass shot down in combat. But that's not a lifetime excuse, or Duke Cunningham wouldn't be in jail today. If Dubya was my boy, there is no fucking way I'd have let him be both such an abysmal fuckup and still be elected President.
-- Modified on 10/1/2007 7:30:42 AM
The one thing he had going for him: dedication to friends and family, he turns into cronyism.
GH knew then what we all know now,ie that Invading Iraq was not a temporary move, but would require us staying in Iraq for years.
I also think that GH thought he would have another four years to finish what he started, He had no way of knowing that Greenspan would overtighten interest rates, putting the economy into the shitter and allowing Clinton to defeat GH with a simple mantra of "its the economy stupid". Things might of been very different if GH was reelected.but of course, we'll never know.
I do think Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neo-cons sold him on it and on the use of the propaganda campaign leading up to it, though he was inclined to do it anyway . But Bush was really sold on the idea that it would bring democracy to the Middle East. He really thinks that a cynical business interest like colonizing Iraq for oil can be aligned with human interests. Like his bother Neil, he doesn't have any sense of smell about conflict of interest.
He sincerely thinks that he could bring democracy to the Middle East, help the Iraqi people, and meanwhile, all his friends can get rich at the same time. No conflict of interests! No cynical exploitation. What do ya mean? Everybody wins.
Worse, I think as it has gone really bad, he has begun to think of himself in the same mold as Abraham Lincoln. If we actually pull out of Iraq, he's going to be whining about it to the press for the rest of his life. I think disgruntled conservatives are going to be "inspired" by his whining, and we're always going have to hear "who lost Iraq?" They won't take the simplest answer: the idiot who put us in.
Fo you think there is a coincidence in that the biggest successful atacks by al-Qu'aida since 911 were in London and Madrid, headquarters to Blair and Aznar respectively?
This latest news of wicked manipulation doesn't even surprise me anymore, the unwillingness of Congress to call Bush et al to task for their crimes doesn't shock me, and the continued loudness of the bush supporters continues to astound me.
But at least I know that my own family will also stab me in the back for a dollar.
When did our collective conscience as a people go down the toilet?
Well, you do always have Prescott Bush who assisted in laundering money for the Nazi's and was a traitor to this country. That whole families substantial wealth is built on the back of dead jews.