1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

U.S. Government Spurned Peace Talks Before the War With Iraq

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Timing, Nov 5, 2003.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    The newest administration scandal involving Iraq.


    Possible Deal Aborted?
    Claim: U.S. Government Spurned Peace Talks Before the War With Iraq

    By Brian Ross and Chris Vlasto
    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/hage031105-1.html

    Nov. 5 — A possible negotiated peace deal was laid out in a heavily guarded compound in Baghdad in the days before the war, ABCNEWS has been told, but a top former Pentagon adviser says he was ordered not to pursue the deal, ABCNEWS has learned.

    A prominent Lebanese-American businessman said he secretly met with Iraqi intelligence officials just days after Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out the U.S. case for war at the United Nations in February.

    Imad Hage, the president of the American Underwriters Group insurance company and known in the region as having contacts at the Pentagon, told ABCNEWS he was first approached by an Iraqi intelligence official who arrived unannounced at his office in Beirut.

    A week later, according to Hage, he and an associate were asked to come to Baghdad, when Hage says he met with Saddam Hussein's chief of intelligence, Gen. Tahir Habbush, later labeled the Jack of Diamonds in the deck of cards depicting the most-wanted members of Saddam Hussein's regime. Habbush is still at large.

    "He was conveying a message," said Hage. "He was conveying an offer." Hage said Habbush laid out terms of a negotiated peace during a four-hour session beginning at midnight at a compound in Baghdad.

    Hage said Habbush repeated public denials by the regime that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction but offered to allow several thousand U.S. agents or scientists free rein in the country to carry out inspections. "Based on my meeting with his man," said Hage, "I think an effort was there to avert war. They were prepared to meet with high-ranking U.S. officials."

    Hage said Habbush also offered U.N.-supervised free elections, oil concessions to U.S. companies and was prepared to turn over a top al Qaeda terrorist, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who Haboush said had been in Iraqi custody since 1994.

    Yasin is one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, indicted in connection with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Hage says Habbush claimed the United States had refused earlier offers to turn him over. "He said we want to show good faith," Hage told ABCNEWS.


    Yasin remains at large and is now thought to be one of the people behind the recent wave of attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.

    Throughout the period of the negotiations claimed by Hage, the Bush administration publicly maintained it would not conduct negotiations with Baghdad to avoid a war that did not first involve the unconditional departure of Saddam Hussein from Iraq or his surrender.

    But Richard Perle, the then chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board, said in the weeks leading up to war with Iraq, he told the CIA but they refused the plan to meet with Iraqi officials to discuss a possible peace deal along the lines of the plan outlined by Hage to ABCNEWS.

    "Although I was not enthusiastic about the offer, I was willing to meet with the Iraqis," Perle told ABCNEWS. "The United States government told me not to." Perle would not disclose which official or arm of the government rejected the talks.

    Prepared to Cut a Deal

    According to Pentagon e-mails obtained by ABCNEWS, Hage's report of the Iraqi offer was forwarded to Defense Department officials on Feb. 20, including Jaymie Durnan who, at the time, was the top aide to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. However, Pentagon officials said Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were not aware of the talks.

    Senior Pentagon officials met earlier in the year with Hage, following an introduction from senior Pentagon staffer, Mike Maloof, who worked in the Office of Special Plans and had first recruited Hage to help the United States in its war on terrorism. Maloof, who was put on administrative leave because of the work he was doing at the Pentagon according to sources, declined to comment on his role in the claimed talks with Iraq.

    But Hage said Maloof helped arrange a meeting with Perle, considered by many to be a principal architect of the U.S. policy on Iraq. Hage said, and Perle confirmed, that the two met in London in early March. Hage said he told Perle the Iraqis were prepared to meet with him or any U.S. representative.

    "They were prepared to go anywhere to talk, to cut a deal," Hage told ABCNEWS.

    Hage said Perle told him he could not proceed without approval from the U.S. government. "He wanted to pursue it further with people in Washington," said Hage, "provided he got the blessing or cover from people in Washington."

    A few days later, Hage said Perle informed him that Washington had refused to allow him to meet with Habbush to discuss the Iraqi peace offer. "He indicated that the consensus was it was a no-go," said Hage, who has dual American citizenship and is known by many in Lebanon for his ability to work with all groups.

    "This was one of many channels going on," said Perle. He added that the United States was discussing options with Saudi Arabia, Russia and France as well.

    Hage, an emerging political leader in Lebanon who is considered pro-United States, said the United States missed a chance to avert war. "It seemed to me there was a genuine offer that was on the table and somebody should have talked, at least talked," Hage said.

    In March, the American invasion began and Rumsfeld said the United States had done everything possible to avoid war. "The American people can take comfort in knowing that their country has done everything humanly possible to avoid war and to secure Iraq's peaceful disarmament."

    A senior U.S. official said the government was unaware of anyone who was in a position to offer a deal that was acceptable to Washington at the time.

    The official said that during the run-up to the war there were a wide variety of people, including "intelligence services, and other third parties and charlatans and independent actors," coming forward to offer roles in the negotiating process and that every plausible lead had been exhausted.

    One U.S. intelligence officer said there were several attempts to meet with Iraqi intelligence officers but they didn't show up.

    "Iraq and Saddam had ample opportunity through highly credible sources over a period of several years to take serious action to avoid war and had the means to use highly credible channels to do that — nobody needed to use questionable channels to convey messages," Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Larry DiRita told ABCNEWS.

    And a senior White House official said the United States exhausted every legitimate opportunity to resolve it peacefully and it was "Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to comply after 12 years and some 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions, including one final opportunity, that forced the coalition to act to ensure compliance."

    The official also added that Saddam was given 48 hours notice to leave before the United States initiated military action.
     
    #1 Timing, Nov 5, 2003
  2. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    49,277
    Likes Received:
    17,881
    Lawrence Eagleburger, a supporter of the war, admitted previously they he knew of four or five people out of Powell, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld, and a few others(there were 10 total) that didn't want peace and were happy that diplomacy failed. This was a guy who knew most of the people involved from his position under Bush I. He's die-hard republican and member Bush's father's cabinet, so he had no bias and wouldn't give the names of the 4 or 5 that he mentioned, just the numbers.

    So this story is definitely within the realm of reality.
     
    #2 FranchiseBlade, Nov 5, 2003
  3. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6


    Maybe they didn't believe these were honest proposals. Free elections? When exactly? Would you honestly trust saddam about free elections, for one?

    Regardless, that's just a possibility of why this route was ignored. It should be further investigated to determine what and why.
     
    #3 Cohen, Nov 5, 2003
  4. GreenVegan76

    GreenVegan76 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,336
    Likes Received:
    1
    Duh. There's no oil in peace.
     
    #4 GreenVegan76, Nov 5, 2003
  5. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    How sad. You've turned into a glynch.
     
    #5 Cohen, Nov 5, 2003
  6. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,828
    Likes Received:
    39,145
    Why wouldn't it have been worthwhile pursuing this? And why would free elections be a deal breaker anyway? I thought WMD's were the reason we went to war.
     
    #6 Deckard, Nov 5, 2003
  7. GreenVegan76

    GreenVegan76 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,336
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ouch. Put me in my place. :p
     
    #7 GreenVegan76, Nov 5, 2003
  8. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    30,490
    Likes Received:
    17,493
    Just when you thought you heard it all ...

    Pathetic really.
     
    #8 No Worries, Nov 5, 2003
  9. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    Why the back-channel petitioning by the Iraqi government? Why not do it through the U.N.?

    Maybe he should have summoned Jesse Jackson to Baghdad... :rolleyes:
     
    #9 giddyup, Nov 6, 2003
  10. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    ;) :)
     
    #10 Cohen, Nov 6, 2003
  11. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    Not a deal breaker, just makes it appear like saddam wasn't being honest ... again ... doesn't it?

    As for the WMDs, so, they bury them or send them to the baath party in syria (with a payoff), kill most all the folks who know, then let our inspectors in. Or maybe next year, or the year after, when our 1000's of investigators are gone, they start building WMD again.

    Based on saddam's history, do you really think we could come to an agreement with him that would be qorth anything?

    And for me, FWIW, there were more reasons than just WMD.
     
    #11 Cohen, Nov 6, 2003
  12. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    It still does not change the fact that the administration CLAIMED to have exhausted every single diplomatic possibility before going to war. It is further proof that the decision to go to war had been made, diplomacy be damned, and the American public was convinced as an afterthought with information that is turning out to have been false.

    So I guess we are down to just making up scenarios out of the air that COULD potentially explain what happened. Actually, I guess the administration has been doing that all along.
     
    #12 GladiatoRowdy, Nov 6, 2003
  13. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    Originally posted by andymoon
    It still does not change the fact that the administration CLAIMED to have exhausted every single diplomatic possibility before going to war. It is further proof that the decision to go to war had been made, diplomacy be damned, and the American public was convinced as an afterthought with information that is turning out to have been false.

    Maybe they should have qualified it 'every honest diplomatic possibility'.

    So I guess we are down to just making up scenarios out of the air that COULD potentially explain what happened. Actually, I guess the administration has been doing that all along.

    No, we are using our brains about quite possible scenarios that make the actions understandable. Read my prior post: 'Regardless, that's just a possibility of why this route was ignored. It should be further investigated to determine what and why.'

    If you were a businessman, would you trust saddam to withhold his end of a contract? I think not.
     
    #13 Cohen, Nov 6, 2003
  14. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    How could we find out if it was an honest diplomatic possibility when the possibility was quashed by the administration? The person bringing the deal to the table has credibility on both sides and the only reason it wasn't followed up on was because the White House ORDERED the effort killed.

    No, you are wildly speculating in the hopes of finding SOMETHING that would put a positive spin on the administration's actions. We agree that this should be investigated, but such an investigation will never happen with Ashcroft at the JD and the Republicans in control of Congress. If Clinton had done this, there WOULD have been a trial in the Senate after the impeachment.

    We could have accomplished our goals on WMDs along with many other issues WITHOUT war if we had pursued the opportunity. We could have saved $100 billion (or more), inspected Iraq fully, given the Iraqi people suffrage, and maybe even get Saddam ousted through diplomacy.

    I just find it difficult to ignore that the administration spurned efforts to resolve this issue peacefully, especially as they were claiming that they had pursued every diplomatic option.
     
    #14 GladiatoRowdy, Nov 6, 2003
  15. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    74,005
    Likes Received:
    20,788
    There are other things about this war that concern me far more than this...

    honestly...who in their right mind would enter into an agreement with a guy that never keeps his word?? particularly at the last minute, when your concern is that he's been stalling all along?
     
    #15 MadMax, Nov 6, 2003
  16. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    I think that Saddam would have been much more open to cooperating once he saw the array of hardware getting ready to barrel down on him. At that point, he had to know that he was about to be taken out and would have done just about anything to keep that from happening.

    Really, to me the issue is that the administration CLAIMED to have exhausted every diplomatic avenue when in reality that was a false statement. Statements that turn out to be false, misleading, or exaggerated seem to be an epidemic in this administration.
     
    #16 GladiatoRowdy, Nov 6, 2003
  17. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    Originally posted by andymoon
    How could we find out if it was an honest diplomatic possibility when the possibility was quashed by the administration? The person bringing the deal to the table has credibility on both sides and the only reason it wasn't followed up on was because the White House ORDERED the effort killed.

    Because we would have been negotiating w/ saddam...proven useless.


    No, you are wildly speculating in the hopes of finding SOMETHING that would put a positive spin on the administration's actions. We agree that this should be investigated, but such an investigation will never happen with Ashcroft at the JD and the Republicans in control of Congress. If Clinton had done this, there WOULD have been a trial in the Senate after the impeachment.

    Wildly speculating? :rolleyes:

    I think it's quite reasonable to speculate that no one in Washington would believe anything that came out of saddam's mouth based on his REAL and UNIMAGINED track record.

    To argue otherwise is delusionary.


    We could have accomplished our goals on WMDs along with many other issues WITHOUT war if we had pursued the opportunity. We could have saved $100 billion (or more), inspected Iraq fully, given the Iraqi people suffrage, and maybe even get Saddam ousted through diplomacy.

    Oust saddam and his sons through diplomacy? :D


    I just find it difficult to ignore that the administration spurned efforts to resolve this issue peacefully, especially as they were claiming that they had pursued every diplomatic option.

    Understood. Should be investigated further, but don't draw conlcusions w/o conisdering some not just viable but likely explanations.
     
    #17 Cohen, Nov 6, 2003
  18. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    116
    Why would the US talk peace when the administration had already made up their mind to get rid of Saddam back in January 2001?
     
    #18 RocketMan Tex, Nov 6, 2003
  19. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    116
    EDIT: Meant January 2002. Apologies, apologies.
     
    #19 RocketMan Tex, Nov 6, 2003
  20. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    Only useless if you have decided that you are going to war no matter what Iraq does. Saddam was fulfilling his obligations (the inspectors were almost finished with their work) until we demanded that he immediately account for everything that WE claimed that he had. Since it is pretty hard to account for something that doesn't exist, I guess we just couldn't trust him.

    Yes, you were wildly speculating when you came up with a possible, though VERY farfetched explanation for where the missing WMDs went. As it stands, the one thing we claim Saddam lied about (having WMDs) turns out so far to have been the truth.

    Who is the delusional one?

    This is just as possible as your flight of fancy about burying or sending the WMDs out of Iraq. Who is to say that we could not have negotiated Saddam stepping down from power when we DIDN'T EVEN TRY?

    The only conclusion that I drew was that the administration claimed one thing while doing something else, which seems to be the case to anyone with their eyes open.
     
    #20 GladiatoRowdy, Nov 6, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now