• news
  • SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 30 2007 9:00 AM

Saddam Offered To Step Down For Cash



If only there had been a way to get rid of Saddam Hussein without going to war. If only that evil dictator had not forced us to invade and send Iraq spiraling into a civil war. But, alas, there was not. That is why our dear President was forced to issue this warning on March 17, 2003.


All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.


So, there it was. We had no other choice. Unless, of course, you include Saddam’s offer to go into exile for $1 billion. Turns out that is quite a bit less than the minimum $400 billion the war will cost us. Other estimates have the war costing as much as $2 trillion. $400 billion and $2 trillion are actually a lot more than $1 billion.

The Spanish newspaper El Pais reported the story of Saddam’s offer this week. Bush told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar the details at a meeting in Crawford, Texas, just one month before the invasion of Iraq.


"The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1 billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction," Bush was quoted as saying.

Asked by Aznar whether Saddam could really leave, Bush replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."


Or he could be found a few months later living in an underground cavern.

Bush also spoke of using a potential Free Trade Agreement with Chile to put pressure on the South American country’s president. He called French President Jacques Chirac, “Mr. Arab” and said the US was playing “good cop, bad cop” with Tony Blair.


"I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop," Bush said.


How’d that work out? Here’s a hint: Terrible cop, horrible cop.

Bush then went on to describe his unrealistic fantasy for the future of Iraq, which involved unicorns, rainbows and pots of gold. But the war didn’t turn out that way. And now we know all of this bloodshed could have been avoided for a measly $1 billion. Is paying off dictators the right thing to do? Depends on the situation. In the case of a nation divided by religious and tribal strife for centuries, that also sits on top of loads of oil, uh yeah.

On Thursday, the White House spewed a non-denial when asked about the Saddam offer.


Q If I can change topics, there's a -- about the history of the Iraq war here. There's a transcript in the Spanish newspaper, El Pa s, that was said to be from a meeting between the President and the Spanish Prime Minister back in February 2003, in which, according to the tapes of this transcript of the conversations, Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion, and the President seemed to think that that was a realistic possibility at that time. Do you believe that this is an accurate transcript?

MS. PERINO: Well, without commenting on the details or talking about a private conversation between two world leaders and whether or not that happened, if you think back to that time, there were a lot of rumors. There were a lot of people floating ideas around about what may or may not happen. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein decided to defy the international community. All diplomatic measures ran their course. And what we are focused on now is making sure that Iraq can be a government that can sustain and defend itself and make sure it's an ally in the war on terror for that region.


Thanks for answering a different question, Ms. Perino. I’ll take that as a, “Yes.”

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 9

Next

Comments
Sunshine

Sunshine

SUICIDEGIRL

Ohio, USA

SEP 30, 2007 09:12 AM

if he had offered his head for a billion...then i would say that was a deal we should have taken! now that woulda been a good deal.

dingoes8

dingoes8

Milwaukee, WI
March 2004

SEP 30, 2007 09:20 AM

I dunno... somehow I doubt he would've used that money to buy a PS3.

StarBelliedBoy

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA
December 2003

SEP 30, 2007 09:21 AM

Yeah, because his word that he would go into exile would actually be worth anything. It's entirely possible he would've taken that money and just laughed in Bush's face, probably threw that billion right back at us in war tech.

SignalNoise

SignalNoise

USA
February 2004

SEP 30, 2007 09:25 AM

I don't like this juxtaposition that somehow because the war is a bad idea being executed terribly, that any other means to get rid of Hussein then become somehow acceptable. I mean, paying off a horrible dictator seems pretty atrocious - this is a guy who should be tried for human rights violations, not sipping drinks in the south of France.

In addition, the argument that "pay off = better than the war" seems based on the notion that somehow Iraq would have avoided its current strife in that scenario. I mean, if we had paid off Saddam, I suppose things would be *better* than they are now - for instance, the infrastructure in Iraq would prolly be better off. But that's a far cry from things being good there. I'm pretty sure there still would have been regional tensions, such as conflict with Iran (over regional dominance) and Turkey (re: the autonomous Kurdish region). Also, I think that the various ethnic groups *inside* the country would have still been struggling against each other. Further, things like de-Baathification still probably would have occurred (or the battle over the de-Baathification would have inflamed a lot of these same tensions). This just seems like a really spurious BS argument basically, based more on a pre-conceived conclusion that the president is a moron than any actual consideration of the context

Markus001

Markus001

United Kingdom
November 2004

SEP 30, 2007 09:28 AM

I'm sure Saddam Hussein would have kept his word. He was trustworthy and honourable like that.


I love sarcasm.

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

SEP 30, 2007 09:29 AM

Yea, I'm really not buying it.

War was not the right choice. But paying off a tyrant isn't the right choice either. There would be no trusting such a man.

A sniper with a bullet that costs $.50 would have been a better solution. Or, you know, a properly executed UN diplomatic solution. Either way.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

SEP 30, 2007 09:30 AM

SignalNoise said:
I don't like this juxtaposition that somehow because the war is a bad idea being executed terribly, that any other means to get rid of Hussein then become somehow acceptable. I mean, paying off a horrible dictator seems pretty atrocious - this is a guy who should be tried for human rights violations, not sipping drinks in the south of France.

In addition, the argument that "pay off = better than the war" seems based on the notion that somehow Iraq would have avoided its current strife in that scenario. I mean, if we had paid off Saddam, I suppose things would be *better* than they are now - for instance, the infrastructure in Iraq would prolly be better off. But that's a far cry from things being good there. I'm pretty sure there still would have been regional tensions, such as conflict with Iran (over regional dominance) and Turkey (re: the autonomous Kurdish region). Also, I think that the various ethnic groups *inside* the country would have still been struggling against each other. Further, things like de-Baathification still probably would have occurred (or the battle over the de-Baathification would have inflamed a lot of these same tensions). This just seems like a really spurious BS argument basically, based more on a pre-conceived conclusion that the president is a moron than any actual consideration of the context



You may very well be right about all of that. But the US would still be a lot better off, first in monetary terms (I think a lot could be done with US$300 billion), and second in reputation terms. No Abu Ghraib scandal, for a start. And I'd bet that having a working country around you is a factor in not becoming an insurgent; a lot of the militia members will be there because there's been a breakdown of order. All of that could have been averted.

Veloxmortis

Veloxmortis

USA
February 2006

SEP 30, 2007 09:31 AM

Saddam was a pretty shallow ass for sure, But I think he would of taken the money and ran off like promised. He seemed to be more worried about money then anything else. This is very obvious from the way he and his sons lived. I've been in a few of the palaces, money was all that man cared about.

Would it have been right to pay him off? Who knows, we never will. I know the way we are going about the war is all wrong. I'm 27 years old and a Vet of a war no one will look back on with warm feelings. I know that sounds funny, but at least people care about WWII Vets.

I am more worried about the cost of American lives then I am the foolish amount of American dollars we are spending on a pointless war. We could of used that money for education or health care and just ignored worthless Saddam. It wasn't like he had Nukes or anything like other evil dictators we know.

But thats just my opinion on it.

MrKingMob

MrKingMob

Chicago, IL
January 2003

SEP 30, 2007 09:50 AM

fountainofdreams said:
A sniper with a bullet that costs $.50 would have been a better solution. Or, you know, a properly executed UN diplomatic solution. Either way.



Paying off dictators is probably, oh, somehow illegal in international law. So is assassination, though. Not that the US cares too much about things like international law, but I'm just sayin'.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

SEP 30, 2007 09:59 AM

fountainofdreams said:
Yea, I'm really not buying it.

War was not the right choice. But paying off a tyrant isn't the right choice either. There would be no trusting such a man.

A sniper with a bullet that costs $.50 would have been a better solution. Or, you know, a properly executed UN diplomatic solution. Either way.



Trust? No. But notice this:

Idi Amin was quiet in the 20 years from his deposition to his death, AFAICT.

Mengistu Haile Mariam, not so sure; he may have Mugabe's ear. But again, for sixteen years he's not been in power anywhere.

I'd bet that neither the Saudis nor Mugabe trusted their guests an inch.

The really awkward part would have been finding someone to take Hussein
in.

Frenchinhaler

Frenchinhaler

Ames, IA
March 2005

SEP 30, 2007 10:09 AM

Pre-coffee reply but here goes.

Yeah, because his word that he would go into exile would actually be worth anything. It's entirely possible he would've taken that money and just laughed in Bush's face, probably threw that billion right back at us in war tech.



For a country 1 Billion isn't all that much money, not saying you couldn't buy some cool shit with it, but meh. Also what if he took it and laughed at us, we could've just invaded then. Whats 1 billion on 2 trillion? What the hell would he of accomplished by lying about this?


I don't like this juxtaposition that somehow because the war is a bad idea being executed terribly, that any other means to get rid of Hussein then become somehow acceptable. I mean, paying off a horrible dictator seems pretty atrocious - this is a guy who should be tried for human rights violations, not sipping drinks in the south of France.



Fuck him, I'd rather have him sipping drinks in France than than 4,101 soldiers dead. Those 100,000 civilians too.

SouGei

SouGei

Blackwood, NJ
January 2007

SEP 30, 2007 10:10 AM

Sunshine said:
if he had offered his head for a billion...then i would say that was a deal we should have taken! now that woulda been a good deal.



We should have paid him to assassinate himself!

He'd probably ask for the cash up front tho.

Kairu

Kairu

Johnson City, TN
September 2007

SEP 30, 2007 10:22 AM

The reason that we (as a country) didn't do that is because we would be giving money to fund terrorism (Who would most likely use them to combat us in later years) Saddam may have stepped down, but he has terrorist ties, and would just use that money to organize an army.

markd21

markd21

I'm lost
July 2007

SEP 30, 2007 10:39 AM

There is a long history of buying off dictators, and it is usually much preferred over a costly and potentially destabilizing war. The reason that trying to buy off Saddam was never explored is because, the war was never about Saddam. Bush & Co. wanted to invade Iraq. Their vision wasn't simply an Iraq without Saddam, but an Iraq that was friendly and compliant. Framing it old school, they wanted a colony. There are a number of reasons for this, but I would say the big one is China and peak oil.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 30, 2007 10:40 AM

Kairu said:
Saddam may have stepped down, but he has terrorist ties, and would just use that money to organize an army.



No matter how many times you say that, it still won't be true. Saddam Hussein never trusted religious extremists, because they symboblized the religious unity that he was never able to realize in his country. You really think if Saddam had "terrorist ties" that Iraq would have stayed silent for so many years? The reason Iraq invaded Kuwait was because they had their own means in the weapons that Reagan had sold them. After those weapons were used up, Iraq got suddenly quiet, militarily speaking. Hussein never trusted religious extremists enough to get terrorists to work with or for him.

Nobody liked Hussein outside of his own political peons. Which means that if he had gone into exile, he would have likely brought them with him, and thinned that government even more. Perhaps the new leadership would be willing to negotiate with the United States without Saddam breathing down their necks the whole time.

Besides, with him in exile, we could easily double-cross his ass and take him in. Then take back his billion dollars. Then stick out our tongues and mock his sorry ass.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 9

Next