Saddam may have gone into exile for $1bn

[Banquo's Ghost]

It appears that a serious initiative to persuade Saddam Hussein to go into exile was being talked over just before the war.

It seems that it was rejected fairly firmly by the Bush administration. This is a time-honoured method of getting dictators to relinquish power, and one wonders why the drive to war was so overwhelming that even this solution didn't appeal.

It certainly would have been a bargain compared to the current cost, and Saddam was never the focus of a cult that would have continued to destabilise the Middle East.

Do any posters think this was a feasible option, or was it always doomed because of the nature of Saddam (let's face it, he continued to maintain the appearance of having WMD even as the bombs fell on Baghdad, which doesn't show a solid grasp of reality) or the rhetoric that was used to build the case for war?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[Pannonian]

I said somewhere that Saddam should have been given a package worth up to $2bn, with $1bn paid up front in return for his and his cronies' exit from Iraq, and another $1bn payable at a later date on continued good behaviour. My rationale was that this was clean, controllable, and could achieve the stated objectives at a far lower cost than war. IIRC I was lambasted for being an amoral supporter of Saddam. I wonder what these people think now.

Has the cost of the war gone over a trillion yet?

[Tribesman]

So there was negotiations , these would have been long and drawn out , lots of little details to finalise .
Quite a complex process I would think , but then some pillock goes and says exile within 48 hours or we bomb ya .

[Fragony]

(let's face it, he continued to maintain the appearance of having WMD even as the bombs fell on Baghdad, which doesn't show a solid grasp of reality)

Doesn't show a solid grasp of reality to think that he would actually use them, he may have been somewhat nuts but he wasn't stupid. Of course he maintained the appearance that he had them, I would. Much of what Saddam did actually makes sense.

[Lemur]

I said somewhere that Saddam should have been given a package worth up to $2bn, with $1bn paid up front in return for his and his cronies' exit from Iraq, and another $1bn payable at a later date on continued good behaviour. My rationale was that this was clean, controllable, and could achieve the stated objectives at a far lower cost than war. IIRC I was lambasted for being an amoral supporter of Saddam. I wonder what these people think now.

Has the cost of the war gone over a trillion yet?

The sad thing is that he wanted to take $1 billion of his own looted money from Iraq. His exit would not have cost the U.S. taxpayers a dime.

By my math the money he would have taken with him would have constituted one-tenth of one percent of what the invasion and occupation have cost. So far. Ugh.

[Ice]

The sad thing is that he wanted to take $1 billion of his own looted money from Iraq. His exit would not have cost the U.S. taxpayers a dime.

By my math the money he would have taken with him would have constituted one-tenth of one percent of what the invasion and occupation have cost. So far. Ugh.

Indeed.

It's funny, my father would always say what an idiot Saddam was for not offering a deal such as this to the United States.

Let's see. No US Soldiers dead, less of deficit, better standing among nations, and the US appearing strong for removing Hussein from power. Yup, I'd definitely say that's better than the mess there is today.

[HoreTore]

Let's see. No US Soldiers dead, less of deficit, better standing among nations, and the US appearing strong for removing Hussein from power. Yup, I'd definitely say that's better than the mess there is today.

You're forgetting that Mr. Bush's penis would shrink. And that is way more important than those frivolous things you mentioned...

[Don Corleone]

It's a great idea. Let's just bribe murderous thugs into doing what we want them to do. Let's release all the felons from prison and PAY THEM not to rape, kill, assault and steal anymore. How much money have we wasted on stupid things like prisons...

[Ice]

It's a great idea. Let's just bribe murderous thugs into doing what we want them to do. Let's release all the felons from prison and PAY THEM not to rape, kill, assault and steal anymore. How much money have we wasted on stupid things like prisons...

Eh, Don. How has invading Iraq and removing Saddam by force worked better than this proposal might have?

[HoreTore]

It's a great idea. Let's just bribe murderous thugs into doing what we want them to do. Let's release all the felons from prison and PAY THEM not to rape, kill, assault and steal anymore. How much money have we wasted on stupid things like prisons...

Bribing him out of the country does not give him immunity to the court in Haag, you know...

Anyway, if you have the choice between letting 100 murderers go or kill 100 000 innocents, I'd chose the former.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ah, but here's the rub: so Saddam is gone, $1bn in hand, but then what? Iraq would not have collapsed in a state of turmoil, in a civil war? Democracy and a bright new future for all Iraqi's would -poof! - magically appear?


BTW, if my memory serves me correctly, Saddam himself made proposals of this kind very near the beginning of the war. So yes, I think Saddam could've been persuaded to take the offer.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

But he also talks of how he planned to exact revenge on countries, that did not back the US in its drive to war.

The transcript revolves around Washington's frustrations at failing to get UN Security Council approval for war – the now-famous second resolution.

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.

"I'm not asking for infinite patience," Mr Aznar said, but "simply that you do what's possible to get everyone to agree".

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."

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

The diplomatic autism and cynicism of the Bush administration still doesn't cease to amaze me.

Did they not realise that they made the position of Aznar impossible? A close friend willing to follow Bush anywhere. And the best the President of the United States can come up with is that perhaps those many doubtful Spaniards think Saddam's okay because he's dark-skinned, far away and Muslim.

Bush and his cronies probably still think those Madrid bombings made the Spanish turn their backs on America. Made some fine jokes about the Spanish lacking cojones too I bet.
Pah, the Spaniards have endured forty years of ETA terrorism and didn't cave in, or let it decide their elections. But they're not willing to pay that price for the sole benefit of supporting the most incompetent fool that has ever set foot in the White House, and that includes the cleaners.

[Tribesman]

Bribing him out of the country does not give him immunity to the court in Haag, you know...

Saddam is not Amerian , the imunity does not apply .
Now if he wwntr to an open cour he could name those evil bastardsthat helped him commit the crimes that hewas accused of..but5 that ain't gonna work is it

[Devastatin Dave]

Saddam is not Amerian , the imunity does not apply .
Now if he wwntr to an open cour he could name those evil bastardsthat helped him commit the crimes that hewas accused of..but5 that ain't gonna work is it

Not to change the subject, but are you drinking or have recently had a stroke? I'm sure your post has a point but I'm a little worried about your sentence structure. Just a concerned citizen...

Back on topic, we wouldn't have that hilarious execution video if this had come to pass. Its worth the death and destruction...

[HoreTore]

Back on topic, we wouldn't have that hilarious execution video if this had come to pass. Its worth the death and destruction...

The scary thing is that I don't know if you're joking or not...

[Ice]

The scary thing is that I don't know if you're joking or not...

He's not.

[PanzerJaeger]

Was anyone else surprised at the words attributed to Bush? Its always odd to compare behind the scenes stuff attributed to him and his public speaking.

Although clearly Bush was misguided as to the costs of the war, he does not come off as a bumbling idiot in the way he speaks.


Also, the article was incredibly biased and drew quite a few shaky conclusions not entirely backed up by the dialogue provided.

This doesn't give me solace in their reporting skills.

Restaurants across the US began using the name Freedom Fries instead of French Fries.

Big exaggeration.

[Tribesman]

he does not come off as a bumbling idiot in the way he speaks.

he comes off as a bumbling idiot in both the way he speaks and more importantly the way he acts .

Also, the article was incredibly biased and drew quite a few shaky conclusions not entirely backed up by the dialogue provided.

Wjheras the administration drew some very very shaky conclusions that were not backed up at all by the evidence provided .

This doesn't give me solace in their reporting skills.

a bad reporter is a bad reporter , it doesn't matter much ...a bad numbnuts in charge of a world power does matter a hell of a lot .

[Goofball]

It's a great idea. Let's just bribe murderous thugs into doing what we want them to do. Let's release all the felons from prison and PAY THEM not to rape, kill, assault and steal anymore. How much money have we wasted on stupid things like prisons...

I understand your point and your disgust Don. But in this case I disagree with you. If the objectives (as stated by the Bush administration) as justification for removing SH from power were 1) For the liberation of the Iraqi people, 2) Protection of the U.S. by eliminating a terrorist haven, 3) Elimination of WMD threat, then bribing SH into exile would have served all of those purposes efficiently and cheaply.

Why does vengence also need to be built into the equation?

On a straight cost/benefit model, bribery certainly beats war in this case.

[Marshal Murat]

I am of two minds...

1. No, if he thinks he can get away with murder, and we pay him to stop, why not keep killing, and keep getting paid?

2. Yes, he would be a hunted man. All the Iranians, Kurds, and Shi'ites would be hunting him down, along with Mossad (maybe). He couldn't do more, cause if he did, he would be killed.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Indeed.

It's funny, my father would always say what an idiot Saddam was for not offering a deal such as this to the United States.

Let's see. No US Soldiers dead, less of deficit, better standing among nations, and the US appearing strong for removing Hussein from power. Yup, I'd definitely say that's better than the mess there is today.

Sure! Smart idea! Give Money to someone to killed MORE then the amount of US troops dead in Iraq. Yup, give a man who killed his own people by the thousands a billion or two dollars and keep him ALIVE. Yup, SMart idea!

you do not bribe thugs like him.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sure! Smart idea! Give Money to someone to killed MORE then the amount of US troops dead in Iraq. Yup, give a man who killed his own people by the thousands a billion or two dollars and keep him ALIVE. Yup, SMart idea!

you do not bribe thugs like him.

Give him the money, ship him somewhere, keep him under close supervision. What damage could he have done? It's not like he was affiliated with Al Qaeda or any terrorist organization of the like.

[Boyar Son]

Wait a minute.

If saddam was the only guy cappable of holdin Iraq together.....

And if we bribed him to get out....

wouldnt the curent situation happen stil?!?!?!

[Xiahou]

Eh, Don. How has invading Iraq and removing Saddam by force worked better than this proposal might have?

Removing Saddam wasn't the hard part. Setting up a new, functioning government is. As I believe someone else mentioned, if Saddam had suddenly abandoned the country there's no reason to think there would have been outbreaks of peace and democracy across the country anymore than there were when we removed him forcibly.

[Pannonian]

Removing Saddam wasn't the hard part. Setting up a new, functioning government is. As I believe someone else mentioned, if Saddam had suddenly abandoned the country there's no reason to think there would have been outbreaks of peace and democracy across the country anymore than there were when we removed him forcibly.

The social and civil infrastructure would have been left in place. Bremer has been strongly criticised for dissolving the Iraqi army and state, directly leading to the mess that exists now. Without the exuberance and authority of winning a war, that option wouldn't have been open in the first place. Do you think that was a particularly wise move on Bremer's part?

[Ice]

Removing Saddam wasn't the hard part. Setting up a new, functioning government is. As I believe someone else mentioned, if Saddam had suddenly abandoned the country there's no reason to think there would have been outbreaks of peace and democracy across the country anymore than there were when we removed him forcibly.

I never claimed there would be any of those things. I listed reasons why above.

[Xiahou]

The social and civil infrastructure would have been left in place. Bremer has been strongly criticised for dissolving the Iraqi army and state, directly leading to the mess that exists now. Without the exuberance and authority of winning a war, that option wouldn't have been open in the first place.

The infrastructure was largely in place after the invasion as well. It was the massive looting and subsequent suicide bombings/saboteurs that destroyed it. If the military had remained in power, without significant foreign troops present, who knows what would have happened? A new, Saddam-like dictator rising from the ranks? Ethnic cleansing? In-fighting?

Do you think that was a particularly wise move on Bremer's part?

I always thought our complete disbandment of the Iraqi military was a questionable decision. I think it would've been better to keep them paid and sitting happily (hopefully) on their bases rather than unemployed and joining a growing insurgency.

[Lemur]

I always thought our complete disbandment of the Iraqi military was a questionable decision. I think it would've been better to keep them paid and sitting happily (hopefully) on their bases rather than unemployed and joining a growing insurgency.

The policy was not to keep them in their barracks, but to use them for public works. Would have been interesting to see how that would have played out.

Here's a good background video about Bermer and the decision to disband the Iraqi army.

[Pannonian]

The infrastructure was largely in place after the invasion as well. It was the massive looting and subsequent suicide bombings/saboteurs that destroyed it.

Erm, I was talking about social and civil infrastructure. That means society, government, etc. Human resources, not material resources. Material damage can always be repaired relatively easily, as long as the social conditions are there to allow it. That was proved by the repairwork the Iraqis did after the 1st Gulf War, when there was a fair bit of physical damage, but they managed to patch things up fairly quickly because the human resources were there. Compare with the systematic dismantling of the human resources aspect this time round, with the aim of creating a blank slate for the neocons to play out their socio-economic fantasies on.

If the military had remained in power, without significant foreign troops present, who knows what would have happened? A new, Saddam-like dictator rising from the ranks? Ethnic cleansing? In-fighting?

You could have asked us for advice, when we would have told you that it's always better to have someone to deal with, rather than an anarchy where no-one knows who's in charge.

I always thought our complete disbandment of the Iraqi military was a questionable decision. I think it would've been better to keep them paid and sitting happily (hopefully) on their bases rather than unemployed and joining a growing insurgency.

You're still thinking of the insurgency as the most important aspect of the Iraq disaster. It's not.