Morning:
13°c
An awesome and ridiculous film that leaves you thrilled beyond the point of your natural endurance
London faces a wave of bus and Tube strikes that could cause chaos for millions of passengers as unions walkout over pay and conditions
More...
Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile
Last updated at 23:22pm on 26.09.07
Saddam Hussein is said to have offered to go into exile for $1bn
George Bush was convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile
Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.
Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).
The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.
The White House refused to comment on the report last night.
But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.
Only yesterday, the Bush administration asked Congress for another £100billion to finance the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The total war bill for British taxpayers is expected to reach £7billion by next year.
More than 3,800 American service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, along with 170 Britons and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
However, according to the tapes, one month before he launched the invasion Mr Bush appeared convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile.
"The Eqyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein," said Mr Bush.
"It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."
Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."
But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."
Mr Bush went on to refer optimistically to the rebuilding or Iraq.
The transcript - which was published yesterday in the Spanish newspaper El Pais - was said to have been recorded by a diplomat at the meeting in Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003.
Mr Bush was dismissive of the then French President Jacques Chirac, saying he "thinks he's Mr Arab".
Referring to his relationship with Downing Street, he said: "I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop."
The President added: "Saddam won't change and he'll keep on playing games.
"The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is."
Days before the invasion began on March 22, 2003, the United Arab Emirates proposed to a summit of Arab leaders that Saddam and his henchmen should go into exile.
It was the first time the plan had been officially voiced but it was drowned out in the drumbeat of war.
A spokesman for Mr Aznar's foundation had no comment on its authenticity.
Bomb attacks killed 57 people in Iraq yesterday.
Reader views (22)
Trust me when I say I despise Bush and our current administration. I didn't agree with the war to begin with, and I have been pushing to get our boys home for a long, long time.
However, to everyone who has said Bush and/or Blair should have taken this "offer", are you completely insane? Suddam has, on historical record, done atrocious things to mankind. What would it look like if the United States, with or without the suppot of the UK, "rewarded" him with a BILLION dollars and information about weapons of mass destruction?
Seriously, are you completely insane?
- Mike, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
The fact that any could believe this story is laughable!
- John, USA
Are you kidding me? Giving a billion dollars to a dictator/thug/terrorist supporting man makes sense to you? Are you crazy? Does the President even have such authority? What precedent would this have set?
- Will, Wallingford, USA
I find this interesting, what WMD's are they talking about? Imagine what this monster would have done with $1bn and all the WMD information once he was in exile...
"It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."
- Greg S., USA
Md from London you say if true, Bush and Blair should be brought before the courts. For what? Not accepting blackmail from a dictator? Come on. Do you really think Saddam could be trusted and would have left peacefully and there would have been no problems for the rest of his life? Even if he had have taken his $1 billion and left, he had no use for the money. He was rich already. Everyone can use more money in life, but Saddam would have funneled at least a portion of the money to terror organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.
- David, Homer, GA USA
Well, there is your answer. If Saddam wanted to take information about WMD's, there must have been WMD's. Can we now quit saying there were no WMD's and President Bush lied?
- Joe, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Appeasement is defeat. Adding $1B to the coffers of a dictator such as Hussein would only embolden him and serve as an example to others that they are free to hold countries to ransom and the U.S. will buy them out.
Furthermore, the demand that he be allowed to keep any information about weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous, especially combined with the $1B dollar ransom.
Critics of American foreign policy argue that we don't understand the historical context of these conflicts, but anyone that advocates for giving a madman $1B and plans to make dirty, chemical, or nuclear bombs is just plain out of their mind.
- Pedro A, Miami, FL
Doesn't this information prove Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction? He can't take the information with him if he doesn't have them!
- R Wiedl, Oxford, CT
It seems the bigger story here is that Saddam expressed to Egypt that he wanted to take "all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction" with him into exile.
If Saddam were concerned about hiding documentation of a WMD program, common sense tells us that WMD either existed or were in development. Allowing Saddam to go into exile would only give him time to hide it, then oversee its distribution to terror networks or rogue states from the safety of an estate in Egypt.
- Steven, Raleigh, USA
There is no way to ask the president to entrust one billion dollars to a ruthless dictator, one with whom we have already made war in the past. I feel the president rushed into Iraq, for reasons I am suspicious of, but this is one of the least viable alternatives to invading Iraq that I have ever heard.
- S Petersen, Omaha, US
I'd have paid $10 billion to send Blair into exile.
- Steve, Watford
M Campbell, there WERE no weapons of mass destruction !
- Marianne, SW France
Whether the war was right or wrong, basing the argument for dispatching this pathological murdering dictator shouldn't ever be considered on a value for money basis!
In any case just think of what a criminal like Saddam could have done with $1 billion. Consider the damage Osama Bin Laden causes with his millions.
- Richard, London
Political expediency is universal in every country throughout all of human history but at least democracies are capable of getting rid of their leaders.
Saddam was responsible for the development of weapons of mass destruction using materials supplied by the west which were also provided to many other countries who never chose to use them to develop weapons. Consequently Saddam became the biggest mass murderer of muslims in the history of mankind invading Iran and Kuwait, arbitrarily attacking Israel and killing hundreds of thousands of his own innocent citizens. Whatever the arguments about the war, -the world is well rid of this despicable murderous fascist who had clearly threatened the security of the entire Middle East.
I feel genuinely sorry for people who are unable to differentiate between Saddam, Bush and Blair. There were 17 (yes seventeen!) U.N. binding resolutions which Saddam ignored - more resolutions than any other country faced. The time for bland pathologic platitudes is surely over. Sadam could easily have avoided a war by acceding to the U.N's requirements for inspections. He above all others was responsible for this war - just as he was for all the other wars. The responsibility lies with him in his grave. The biggest criminal in all of this was charged and duly paid for his depravity just like those at Nuremburg 50 years ago.
- M Campbell, London
I shouldn't be shocked but I am - how deceitful. So basically we have spent the taxpayers' money and many soldiers lives on a war that could have been avoided. Blair and Bush have blood on their hands. There are many soldiers who have died fighting this war as well as many innocent citizens.
- Jk, London
What next, should we allow murderers here in the UK to leave the country with a government pay off which could leave a saving against the cost of a court trial? I think not!
- Bradley, London
Moo,
The simple answer to that is that UK and US were quite happy to do business with him when he was killing people, even to the extent of arming him. However, if they paid him off then the US wouldn't be able to control the oil, which they have managed to do under cover of the invasion and subsequent unrest. When was the last time you heard of an oil well being blown-up by the so-called insurgents?
- Mark, South-East London
Why spend your money for him to go? He had killed so many people by starting this war.
- Moo, London, UK
I agree with MD, there was a good chance to avoid a war (putting aside the lies Blair and Bush spun) and Bush and Blair turned it down -they had already decided that they wanted a war regardless of truth and facts. Some sort of criminal charges are in order.
- Dave, London
How much for Bush to go?
- Philip, London, England
If true, Bush and Blair should be brought before the courts.
- Md, London
Sounds like it would have been a bargain. Can we have two?
- Threaded, Roskilde, Denmark
