Saddam offer of going into exile in return for $1bn was rejected by Bush

The London Evening Standard is reporting claims that a month before the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein offered to go into exile in return for a billion US dollars.

The details emerge from the transcript of a meeting between President George Bush and then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Anzar, held at the president’s Texas ranch.

The White House has refused to comment at this point in time.

This must be placed alongside Alan Greenspan’s recent confirmation that Iraq was primarily about oil. Taken together, it means that the primary basis on which the invasion was launched was demonstrably false. It is, and always was, about securing American economic and geo-political interests in the region.

Of course there’s going to be an almighty brouhaha when parents of soldiers killed in what will be considered an unnecessary war and American and British taxpayers get wind of this. Based on the reasons given for the invasion, who could blame them?

But this does not alter the course of what is going to take place one iota.

The US, for reasons far more compelling than Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, arrived in Iraq. Prior to even considering an exit strategy, these issues need to be addressed: Iran, the securing of American energy needs and the balancing of forces in the region — not necessarily in that order.

Bush’s recent decision on troop reduction in the summer was a non-event. As pointed out by Time magazine, American military commitments as well as the cost implications meant that those reductions would have taken place in any event.

In practical terms, “surge” had a limited lifespan.

Regardless of what the Democrats are now saying, there is no guarantee of an early exit even if they assume the presidency.

The stakes are just too high to cut and run.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton conceded as much on Wednesday evening.

The difficulty has always been justifying an American invasion based on compelling interests — nobody would have sanctioned it. “We’re invading a sovereign country because our needs are greater than theirs?”

I hardly think so.

Now they are faced with having to justify the expense and continuation of the exercise, with the man in the street fed up with the cost and at a loss to understand why, having achieved the stated primary goals, they should remain in Iraq.

Sort of a catch 37 : If you give the real reason for invading, you stand in doggie poo, but if you stick to the good old BS basis you started with, you stand in doggie poo; so you try to outline the real basis using the exit strategy goals as the basis for the shift and stand in … er … doggie poo.

I don’t know why they didn’t just do a Russia — arrive in Alaska, plant flag.

Dear mother of … I hope they haven’t turned down a similar offer from Bobby Mugabe. It’s not that we aren’t fond of tyrants; it’s just that he’d be that much more special to us living on another continent.