Interesting report - from an unlikely source: "U.S. rejected 2003 Iraqi peace offer"

[sabra]

Interesting to see this @ the RW source WND? :eyes:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91349

U.S. rejected 2003 Iraqi peace offer
Saddam Hussein proposed elections, disarmament, help with war on terror
Posted: March 10, 2009


The U.S. in 2003 rejected an unconditional offer from Saddam Hussein for disarmament, U.N.-supervised elections and help in the war on terror, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

At the 11th hour, U.S. intelligence officials brushed aside the Iraqi offer for unconditional terms for peace, which was submitted through Syrian auspices.

...

Recent evidence, however, reveals a meeting had occurred in 2002 on similar unconditional terms, which the CIA had rejected.

This rejection through the CIA channel prompted Syrian officials to look to other avenues to approach directly U.S. policymakers who apparently were not receiving information on such overtures. By then, the CIA-Syrian intelligence channel was broken.

Iraq had offered six unconditional terms which were channeled through to Defense Department policymakers. The terms were:

* Full support of America’s Arab-Israeli peace process.

* Support for U.S. strategic interests in the region.

* Priority to the United States for Iraqi oil.

* Elections within two years under U.N. auspices.

* Disarmament – direct U.S. involvement in disarming Iraq.

* Full cooperation in the war on terror -- hand over Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was involved in the 1993 bombing of New York City’s World Trade Center. To this day, he still is at-large.

The Iraqis also offered to allow the U.S. to bring some 5,000 troops into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction which some in the policy chain had determined were no longer in Iraq.

[CJCRANE]

1. A "war of choice" n/t

[OnyxCollie]

2. Is this report available anywhere else? nt

[T Wolf]

3. This is NOT the first that this has leaked out. There was buzz back then but it was

ignored by the media (and Bush, obviously).

But, there was to be no impediment to the rush to full-scale war.

[sabra]

4. no doubt - and we saw it on DU back then - kind of curious why the RW

site WND would want to bring it up now...?

[Ohio Joe]

10. Thats the real question

I don't think there is anyone here that believes anything other then Bush lied us into war. Since when though, does a wing nut site like WND do anything but shovel right wing crap... Why now? Theres the real question about this article.

[zbdent]

5. I remember Bush saying, effectively, "Hey, we'll call the whole thing off

if you just disarm yourself ..."

of course, making it known that Saddam was more than willing to show that he didn't have the armaments would ruin their happy little war, right?

[Peace Patriot]

6. As I recall, they did the same thing to the Taliban, who offered to turn over OBL...

I think it may have been contingent upon the Bushwhacks providing some sort of evidence against OBL on 9/11. But even so, with such an offer on the table, to choose invasion and the slaughter of so many innocents instead, is also the gravest of war crimes.

To this day, there is no evidence--zero, zilch--that OBL masterminded 9/11. But that isn't likely why the Bushwhacks turned the Taliban offer down--that they hadn't a shred of evidence to justify their demand. In Iraq, the true object was the oil contracts. In Afghanistan, the pipeline and re-starting the heroine trade (which the Taliban had shut down). And I am beginning to think, also, that the overall motive--in addition to sheer war profiteering for failing corporations like Halliburton--was "drowning" our government "in the bathtub," as Grover Norquist put it. To bankrupt us. And thus to destroy existing social programs, and funding for future ones. In this way, they thought to cripple the potentially most progressive force on earth, the American people, who happen to live at the vortex of global corporate predator power. If the American people were ever to get informed enough, and well-organized enough, we have the sovereign power to dismantle the corporate dragons who are oppressing us and everyone else. Combined with Diebold & brethren--the EASY capability of fixing our elections, still in Bushwhack corporate hands--draining off all of our wealth and creditworthiness unto the 7th generation is an effective assault on our capacity to regulate and/or dismantle corporate powers, stem global warming, initiate world disarmament and pursue social justice goals.

When you think of how gleefully and obscenely the Bushwhacks spent our tax dollars on war--and added in multiple tax cuts for the rich--you can't help but think that such vast malfeasance was deliberate. They intended to bankrupt us. And, in September of last year, we saw the final looting--this wholly unnecessary financial crisis, at the last minute--what I call their Financial 9/11--draining off another trillion dollars, with no accountability--just like that, poof, gone. Insolvency unto the 7th generation.

Now we--and our children, and our children's children--have to work our fingers to the bone just to keep up with the debt. And every time we make a little headway, back comes Diebold & brethren, to install the next looting crew. We haven't fixed that yet--the 'TRADE SECRET' code, privatized voting machines.

[merh]

8. Actually, the Taliban offered us OBL in February of 2001

and the Bush regime ignored the offer (or hadn't a clue who OBL was at that time).

In September 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban offered us OBL if we could provide evidence of his involvement in the attacks, Bush said screw you and started the bombing in Afghanistan.

After the attacks were underway, in October of 2001, the Taliban again offered to give us OBL, the offer was ignored.

And don't forget, Saddam offtered to go into exile, taking his sons - the US didn't like that and neither did the Saudis, the US killed the deal.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq were wars of agression and wars of choice, the US had other options and GWB and the warthugs chose war.

[dmr]

13. Can't forget Bush* gave the Taliban 43 Million in May, 2001 for the War on Drugs

Even though our government knew they were harboring OBL. War on Drugs, humph!

[anonymous171]

7. SERIOUSLY!? WTF!?

GODDAMMIT BUSH! I SWORE YOU WOULD NEVER MAKE ME RAGE AGAIN AFTER JANUARY 20th! :grr:

[merh]

9. You won't be able to keep that promise.

Now the truth will come out and folks will begin to accept what most of us have been saying from the very beginning - GWB was a creep and a liar and a thug that didn't give a damn about anything but greed and some odd sense of grandeur.

I imagine one day in the next quarter of a century, should I live that long, to turn on the discovery channel and see a full documentary on the crimes and the lies of GWB.

[KansDem]

11. No profit in peace...

Bush wanted his "wargasm."

[indepat]

12. War on Iraq was going to happen, no if, buts, or ands, just as was a policy of systemic torture for:

they like it, the killing, the carnage, the destruction, and the torture as lagniappe. :P

[jimlup]

14. They desperately wanted war

That was obvious as the Bushie's initiated the attack. They intentionally made a long list of impossible demands and then ignored any attempt from Iraq to negotiate conditions. Standard neocon maneuvering was all out for attack. The "war" started many months before it actually "started". It was a blatant war of aggression for all to see.

The "weapons of mass destruction" was simply an obviously false propaganda ploy. I'm just surprised that they didn't attempt to fabricate an Iraqi WMD program. I guess it was too big a lie even for them to pull off. But that is irrelevant. It is important to realize that the neocons achieved their aims in Iraq. They have a permanent US base there and economic control of the country. The only thing they have not succeed in controlling is the "propaganda" in both the US and Iraqi populations.

[14thColony]

15. There was no way Bush wasn't going to invade Iraq

I was involved in some of the planning for the war, and many of us hoped it would be called off at the last minute. Few of us saw any reason for it. But a week out, I remember saying that "Saddam Hussein could blow his brains out on live satellite television, and we're still invading." If this story is even half true, the Emperor could have gotten almost everything he wanted at no cost. But no war is no fun I suppose.

Likewise Iran offered to cooperate with us in the invasion of Afghanistan, allow overflight of their territory, provide intelligence, and if I recall even use their own military forces to support ours if necessary (needless to say Iran hated the Taliban's guts). Of course that didn't fit the "Iran is evil" meme so we blew them off too.

I honestly think the Bush regime had to be way smarter than we thought to appear this incredibly incompetent.

[nichomachus]

16. What else is new? Japan tried to surrender twice before we nuked them

but we had bombs we wanted to play with in order to scare the Russkies and we refused their surrender