Saddam Could Have Been Removed Without Iraq War By Rob Kall

[Demeter]

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_070927_saddam_could_have_be.htm




Saddam offered to go into exile if allowed to take a $billion dollars with him. Bush turned him down and began an unnecessary war.

In February 2003, George Bush told the former prime minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, that Saddam Hussein had offered to go into exile, but that he would reject the offer, and that the US would be at war with Iraq by March of 2003. the Financial Times reports.


Hussein had offered to go into exile for $1 billion dollars.

The Financial Times based its report on a leaked transcript of a conversation between Bush and Aznar, stating,

Outlining contacts between Saddam and Egypt, Mr Bush said: “He’s indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he’s allowed to take $1bn and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction.” Mr Bush ruled out such a deal, describing Saddam as “a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal”.

It appears that the Iraq war, sold as necessary to rid the world of Saddam, justified as worthwhile after the war was under way, after the occupation had cost the US thousands of lives and cost the Iraqis hundreds of thousands of innocent victims. was not necessary.

Would this going to war on another lie be enough for Nancy Pelosi to put impeachment back on the table?





Authors Bio:
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects.

-----------------------------------------------------

I HAVE A BETTER QUESTION--WHEN IT'S TIME FOR BUSH TO GO, WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE US RESPONSE?

ARE WE GOING TO LET HIM WALK OFF INTO DUBAI OR RYIADH WITH HIS LOOT, OR GIVE HIM THE SAME KIND OF SEND OFF THAT HE GAVE SADDAM?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Wasn't going to happen b/c of *'s liquid diet: blood and oil

[acmavm]

2. And his desperate need to one-up the old man. He wanted to be

the 'war pResident' that defeated and took over the Middle East (not just Iraq by any means).

[no_hypocrisy]

3. The classic Greek tragedy of being a bigger man in every way

than one's father. Oedipus lives!

[acmavm]

4. Oh my goodness, that's exactly what it is.

Wonder how far the complex goes. I can't imagine anyone wanting a piece of old Babs.

[Demeter]

5. Probably Settle For Drinking Her Blood, Too

Something beyond sick in that man.

[Igel]

6. Isn't there another 'fact' that played a part in this process?

Didn't * say that he heard something from the British? That Saddam had tried to procure uranium in Africa?

Is Egypt more reliable in its hearsay than Britain? Is there something about the phrasing that makes one more necessarily true than the other?

Apart from what I want to believe, that is. From time to time I've had trouble squaring what I want to believe with what actually is, and think this might be one such case.

I know if I were Aznar and * told me that having Saddam go into exile was the best possible solution and would save him a lot of money and then reneged, I'd be a bit upset and possibly say something about it.