Saddam's desperate offers to stave off war Washington dismissed Iraq's peace feelers, including elections and weapons pledge, put forward via diplomatic channels and US hawk Perle Julian Borger in Washington, Brian Whitaker and Vikram Dodd Friday November 7, 2003 The Guardian In the few weeks before its fall, Iraq's Ba'athist regime made a series of increasingly desperate peace offers to Washington, promising to hold elections and even to allow US troops to search for banned weapons. But the advances were all rejected by the Bush administration, according to intermediaries involved in the talks. As US and British troops massed in the Gulf, Iraqi intelligence sent out a range of compromise feelers through a number of channels in the apparent hope of forestalling the invasion or at least buying time. The messages were sent through Syrian intelligence, and French, German and Russian diplomatic channels, and as the countdown to invasion ticked away, through retired CIA officials and a Lebanese-American businessman who met the Washington hawk, Richard Perle, in a London hotel. The first approach appears to have been made last December through the CIA's former head of counter-terrorism, Vincent Cannistraro. "I was approached by someone representing Tahir al-Tikriti - the Iraqi intelligence chief also known as [General] Tahir Habbush - who said Saddam knew there was a campaign to link him to September 11 and prove he had weapons of mass destruction," said Mr Cannistraro. "The Iraqis were prepared to satisfy those concerns. I reported the conversation to senior levels of the state department and I was told to stand aside and they would handle it," he said. He later heard the Iraqi offer had been "killed" by the Bush administration. In the next three months, several more approaches from Iraq were made through third countries, US intelligence sources said. At one point, a meeting between CIA officials and Iraqi agents was arranged in Morocco but, according to the US sources, the Iraqi side did not show up. Iraqi intelligence was also offering privately to allow several thousand US troops into the country to take part in the search for banned weapons. Baghdad even proposed staging internationally-monitored elections within two years. "All these offers had at bottom the same thing - that Saddam would stay in power, and that was unacceptable to the administration," Mr Cannistraro said. "There were serious attempts to cut a deal but they were all turned down by the president and vice president." According to the Knight-Ridder news agency, the Iraqis sought a direct route to the Washington hawks in February. They found a Lebanese-American businessman, Imad el-Hage, who boasted he had a direct line to the Pentagon. Mr Hage told yesterday's New York Times that he was initially approached by General Habbush's chief of foreign intelligence operations, who turned up in Mr Hage's Beirut office and promptly collapsed, apparently from stress. When Mr Obeidi recovered, he urged Mr Hage to tell his Washington contacts Iraq was ready to talk about anything, including oil concessions, the Middle East peace process, and banned weapons. The Iraqi official said the "Americans could send 2,000 FBI agents to look wherever they wanted", according to Mr Hage. A week later Mr Hage travelled to Baghdad and talked to Gen Habbush himself. The general repeated the invitation to allow Americans to search for weapons and added an offer to hand over a suspected terrorist, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who had been convicted in the US for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre. The regime would hold elections within two years, and the intelligence chief even offered to fly to London to discuss the issue in person. Mr Hage relayed these offers via an intermediary to the Pentagon, but there was no official response. The Lebanese-American businessman persisted, and arranged a meeting with Mr Perle, a member of the Pentagon's advisory board. It is understood that Mr Hage and Mr Perle met on March 7 in the lobby of the Marlborough hotel in Bloomsbury. They then went to an office nearby where over two hours Mr Hage outlined the Iraqi offer to Mr Perle. Mr Perle was travelling in Europe yesterday and unavailable for comment. However, he told the New York Times he had been told by the CIA not to pursue contacts with the Iraqis. A US intelligence source insisted that the decision not to negotiate came from the White House, which was demanding complete surrender. According to an Arab source, Mr Perle sent a Saudi official a set of requirements he believed Iraq would have to fulfil. Those demands included Saddam's abdication and departure, first to a US military base for interrogation and then into supervised exile, a surrender of Iraqi troops, and the admission that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. According to Mr Hage, Gen Habbush rejected any proposal involving Saddam's abdication, offering future elections instead. But even after the war got under way, the Iraqi intelligence chief appears to have sought new compromises. This time the conduit was Robert Baer, another former CIA official. There was talk of a meeting between Mr Baer and GenHabbush in Ramadi, outside Baghdad, in early April. "It was a promise to hold free elections supervised by France and the US," Mr Baer said. But the proposed meeting never happened. Two daysearlier, on April 9, the house it was supposed to take place in was bombed by US planes with six precision-guided bombs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079769,00.html
Wow...but does this come as any surprise to anyone. I mean according several of Bush's former aids, Bush had Iraq in his sights way before 9-11. He had to do something, and if wagging the dog in Iraq would deflect his plummeting numbers then so damn be it. Guess all those WarMongers who were so quick to discredit Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke were right after all...Go figure.
Colin Powell was busy stating "Iraq poses no threat whatsoever to the US" just to turn around and lie to the world a few months later. Then leaving the Bush campain in what I believe was his concious.
So quick to discredit The Guardian. Does this mean that Shawn Hannity, Fox news, and newsmax (Im going to assume you read or listen to at least one of these) are uncredible pieces of crap? I should stop myself. At least NewsCrap, and the Washington Times try to hide their bias more so then Fox, Hannity Station.
Actually, I do remember reading about this during the pre-invasion buildup. Haven't you read the Downing Street memo?
Oh ignore bigtexxx, he has nothing to offer to counter the story or the simple FACT that Wolfowitz and Cheney proposed an invasion of IRaq immediately following 9/11, even BEFORE going after Afghanistan. PBS did an excellent documentary about this a while back, I believe you can find it online still. This is just a fact: Iraq was 'on the table' ASA 9/11 happened, regardless of any terrorist connections (oddly enough, the same man behind the 'sexed up' intel used to justify an invasion of IRaq is using similar tactics to draft a document which would authorize an attack on Iran if another 9/11 type of attack takes place, regardless of IRanian involvement. I can only imagine why those crazy Iranians want nukes!). The leaked secret memos such as the Downing Street one only serve to confirm this fact. Seriously, what more 'proof' do you want than the UK intelligence itself confirming that 'the intelligence is being fixed' around this policy? The invasion was inevitable, regardless of UN or NATO objections, it was a strategic decision meant to address long-term security concerns (namely China). You can kill the messenger and ignore the message all you want. The whole IRaq thing was a geostrategic decision made independent of any true 'threats' to this nation's interests from Iraq, and timed just so that the nation could be sold on the whole idea and 'trust' their leaders. Anyways, we are in it now, too late to turn back...
This was news before the war. I recall reading that Iraq tried to give intelligence help on wanted terrorists long before the war but the White House wouldn't have it. Saddam was a bigger fish in their minds I suppose.
Wow. Saddam would have held elections. Wait, he already held 'elections' and got almost 100% of the vote . Then again he could have gone into exile, but chose not to do so.
No one gives a **** about democracy or elections, that never was nor will ever be a 'priority' in US foreign policy. Historically speaking, always think about economics and geostrategic dominance first. That's a proven track record.
Then again, Bush could have taken him up on the offer, seen where it lead, and had his invasion later if Saddam reneged. What in the hell did he have to lose? Why not take every avenue to avoid war, if you could get what you were supposedly after? Why, in god's name, wouldn't that have been worth doing if it could have saved the lives of US service men and women, and tens of thousands of Iraqis? What did Bush have to lose by pursuing it, while he built up a real coalition of allies? Why? Because he never intended to give Saddam an out, and was determined to invade. And don't say, "Oh, Saddam could have gone into exile to Saudi Arabia, or somewhere, and we could have avoided all this." Bull crap. Anyone who was informed about world affairs, Iraq, and the Middle East could have told you Saddam wouldn't do that. Giving him that option was no different than the "options" Austria-Hungary gave Serbia just before all hell broke lose and WWI began. Austria-Hungary's leaders wanted to go to war with Serbia. Even after Serbia agreed to the most humiliating terms, the Dual Monarchy attacked anyway. Bush did the exact same thing. He didn't want any agreement with Saddam to avoid war, he wanted the bloody war to occur. Hayes, you are an intelligent man. Surely you can see that. If not, take the blinders off, old chap. Keep D&D Civil!!
People are giving Bush way too much credit. He didn't think of any of this stuff, he just took orders and followed through on the advice of some of his trusted inner circle (namely Wolfowitz and Cheney, with Rumsfeld buying into it later on, and with Colin Powell the only true opposition to the whole invasion idea, although he followed along like a good soldier). Basically, Bush was an isolationist who bought into neoconservative ideology, and basically endorsed it.
Sigh. Not if 'neocons' are running the show, as everyone asserts. If that is true then you are wrong. btw: there are many examples of democracy being a 'priority' in US foreign policy. For example, sanctions on Chile for reform (Carter). Not sure why its 'bullcrap' that Saddam could have left. Its happened in quite a few other places - look at Marcos or Papa Doc. Some dictators DO go into exile. I'm not willing to give Saddam a free pass, even in hindsight. You say he 'would never do that.' In the same way I can say he would never (give up his quest for WMDs) (hold free elections) (stop supporting terrorism) etc etc. He had an option, he didn't take it. You're saying they SHOULD have agreed to stave off the intervention so for two years for him to hold a shame election? That, my friend, doesn't make too much sense.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm these guys have been calling for an invasion of iraq since clinton was in office. they wanted to do it all along and 9/11 gave them the opportunity to do so.
True. My point really is that 'neocons' by definition ARE concerned with democracy. I don't believe the whole administration is neoconservative - it seems preposterous to assert Cheney is, for example. IMO Iraq was a unique case where the interests of both the real politik crowd (Cheney fits better here IMO) AND the neocons merged. But to claim there was NEVER ANY interest in democracy is silly.
I never said anything about Saddam holding elections. The reason Bush wanted to go to war was over WMD, so he said. If we were allowed to "blanket" the country looking for them, as Saddam offered, and we didn't find them, which we wouldn't have, since he had obviously destroyed them (they have yet to be discovered, and I don't know if we are even seriously looking for them now), then there would have been no reason for war, based on Bush's own reasons. Understand me now? **** elections. If we wanted the world's dictatorships to all hold elections, then we better break off relations with a whole slew of countries, including several allies, and go to war with every damn one of them. And make ourselves exactly what we have traditionally despised in others... dictators ourselves, dictating our form of government to the world, as if we have the right! Bull crap. Keep D&D Civil!!
That's what's interesting. This administration has been going through 'phases' it seems. For a brief moment, Bush was quiet the 'conservative' and isolationist, enough to make Pat Buchanan proud! Once 9/11 hit, it turned to neoconservative ideology and Iraq happened. Interestingly enough, Iraq might have resulted in necons being largely shunned by the administration (having read many critical commentaries coming from established Neocon figures -- prominant neocons as Bill Kristol from the 'Weekly Standard' and even Richard Perle has been critical now of the whole Iraq effort due to what he deems is 'bad planning') and turned to more realist figures such as Cheney and the incredibly bright Condi Rice (say what you may about her, but she knows her stuff, her academic background/accomplishments speak to that). What I think we currently have is more of a mix of realism with a dose of neconservatism, with the balance shifting more and more in favor of realism. Why do I say that? I think our dealings with China, Venezuela, and even Iraq suggest that we are reverting back somewhat to that.
Same reasoning applies. As long was in power he would continue to play cat and mouse over WMDs. He did it for 12 years with the UN. He would continue to do it. Besides, WMD was not the only reason given for the intervention. Calm down. Never said elections were the only, or even the most trumpeted reason, for the intervention. However, your argument is terrible. To suggest that we have to act against ALL dictatorships at the same time or we're hypocrites is silly. C'mon, Deckard.
