A leaked transcript of talks between President George W. Bush and José Maria Aznar, former Spanish prime minister, has cast fresh light on the diplomatic wrangling that preceded the Iraq war.
Speaking in February 2003, a month before the invasion, Mr Bush told his Spanish counterpart that US forces would be in Baghdad by the end of March regardless of whether the United Nations authorised the use of force.
He also talked about punishing countries that failed to support a UN resolution backing the war and outlined an offer by Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader, to go into exile in return for $1bn, which he said the US would reject.
The White House on Thursday declined to comment in response to questions about the transcript, which was first reported this week in El País, the Spanish newspaper, but did not challenge the accuracy of the report.
"We have to get rid of Saddam," Mr Bush told Mr Aznar in a meeting at the president's Texas ranch, according to the transcript.
"In two weeks we will be ready militarily. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March."
The meeting in question came as the US and its allies, including Spain and the UK, were lobbying the UN Security Council for a second resolution authorising military action if Saddam failed to disarm.
Mr Bush said Angola risked losing aid and that a proposed US trade deal with Chile could be blocked if the two countries, which both occupied Security Council seats at the time, failed to support the resolution.
The US eventually dropped its bid for a fresh resolution after it became clear it would be blocked.
Mr Bush told Mr Aznar he was playing a "good cop, bad cop" routine with Tony Blair, the then British prime minister. "I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop," he said.
He predicted that the war would be won "without destruction" and said planning was under way for "post-Saddam Iraq".
"I think there is a good basis for a better future," he said. "Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively robust civil society."
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".

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid...21329164&hl=en

It would have been a cheap life saving alternative. Pay him, then give him a Hellfire enema to help him on his way out of the country.

Unfortunately it's easy to be wise in hindsight.

How much has this war cost? A lot more than $1,000,000,000! That's an extremely small price to pay for the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost so far.

Why even bother wasting taxpayer missiles on Saddam if he is out of the picture and chillin' in Barbados?

This is not true....

Secret Bush-Aznar Memo: The Real Story

Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 4:56:36 pm PDT

In the latest phony, trumped up controversy, the left is screaming their silly heads off about a leaked memo detailing a conversation between President Bush and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar shortly before the Iraq War. Terrorist sympathizer Juan Cole is leading the wolf pack, and he’s worked himself up into a high dudgeon, yelling for impeachment.

But Jose Guardia has posted a full, accurate translation of the memo at PJ Media, and surprise! It says exactly the opposite of what the left is claiming it says: Secret Bush-Aznar Memo Sparks Controversy.

Originally Posted by senojekips

It would have been a cheap life saving alternative. Pay him, then give him a Hellfire enema to help him on his way out of the country.

Unfortunately it's easy to be wise in hindsight.

Hehe many people argued before the whole thing started that the easiest option was to have paid the most acceptable of Hussein's henchmen a few million to dispose of him and left him with a threat of similar action if he didn't toe the line.

Or as I said, just pay off Saddam and the bunch to be more cooperative.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Or as I said, just pay off Saddam and the bunch to be more cooperative.

Knowing the little that I do about Saddam, I feel that he would take the money then demand more and more, so the easiest way to short circuit this is the get rid of him. Then, as Monty says, let it be known that his successor will get a dose of the same medicine if he does not toe the line.

I never thought that I would ever vote in favour of assassination as a diplomatic tool, but it seems there comes a time where the greater good must be seen as more important. Then again, politics and diplomacy are the dirtiest games in town.

The greater good? How was Saddam even affecting the United States before we invaded? He couldn't have touched us if he wanted to. And now we got Iran on the verge of supplying fissile materials to real terrorists.

Umm, that is pretty odd. I don't know if I believe that to be true.

Originally Posted by major liability

The greater good? How was Saddam even affecting the United States before we invaded? He couldn't have touched us if he wanted to. And now we got Iran on the verge of supplying fissile materials to real terrorists.

Major liability, the world is a much larger place than the United States. The man was a loose cannon affecting world politics as are several other countries at the moment.

As much as I feel it was wrong to invade Iraq, Saddam needed to be made to toe the line and unfortunately for Iraq the US ran out of time and patience before it could be accomplished by other means. His presence was fast becoming a major threat to Middle east stability. The rest is history.