Iraq tried to offer a last minute peace solution prior to the war

This is a story from ABC news about a thwarted plan from the Iraqis for peace.

<SNIP>

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

<SNIP>

"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.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/hage031105-1.html

I have not heard of an Iraq offer that was nixed.

(DU Thread that is a dupe of yours, came later, and should be pulled

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=201688 )

But what was the written offer - and who got it - or was it all verbal

last week.

Perle is basically saying that he did not pursue it because the administration did not want him to. This substantiates the deal. The iraqis actually offered free UN approved elections in the deal and they were prepared to turn over a top terrorist. Democracy is what the administration now claims that they are trying to establish in Iraq so the question is why would they have turned down this deal.

and this is from memory, but I thought that Perle claimed that it was the C.I.A. that discounted the Iraqi offer.

I find it interesting that the Niger documents were considered legitimate by this administration yet a back-door offer for inspectors and, ultimately, to avoid a war, was considered illigitimate. Black is white. Up is down. :crazy:

They let in the UN inspectors, and told the truth about the non-presence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in their country. Fortunately, Smirky McWarhardon saw through all these scams and launched his invasion anyway. Now, thousands of deaths later, we're being told that Saddam was a bad, bad man, and to get ready for another 10 years (at least) of formerly alive military personnel returning to the U.S. in transit tubes. I wonder how many will come home that way before the public decides enough have died in service to the lie?

:puke:

(snip) 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. (snip)

(snip) ....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. (snip/)

Damned, damned shame. Thanks for the article, 1songbird, and welcome to D.U. :hi: :hi: :hi:

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Perhaps thousands of people
would be alive today if the administration had tried harder.

They tried as hard as hell to hide or spin anything that looked like a reason not to go to war. They had their PNAC road map and their was nothing that was going to stand in their way. Certainly not a little matter like negotiating for a peace they didn't want. Peace would have cut off Halliburton and the BFEEs ability to quickly and efficiently rob the US treasury and our pockets.

Not to make a deal.

and my impression, which I am sure was obvious for many others, was that the reason Iraq's feelers for a settlement were rejected was because Bush decided to go to war the year before.

Many have died, and many more have yet to die, because of the biggest foreign policy blunder America has made since Vietnam.

I smell war crimes. Make the guy talk.

When oh when are we going to reach the tipping point on this stuff, where it starts to stick?
Maybe, just maybe it's happening already.

I sure hope this gets on a national network program and not just on cabel. there are at least two more stories out there about ways the invasion could have been avoided but was nixed by the Bush cabal which intended to use the 9/11 cover to begin their agenda for a new world order.

in Gulf War I. Overtures for a peaceful withdrawal from Kuwait were offered, and rejected. Then Bush the elder got up before the press and declared that "all avenues of peace" had been exhausted, and the press did not say a word to contradict him.

did ANYONE....anyone on earth, notice that
a) while fishing for UN approval, Bushinc sent 100plus thousand troops to Iraq borders?
b) by doing so, Bushinc committed the US to war unless Saddam surrendered w/out a fight?
c) Saddam never tried to surrender; the Iraqis NEVER offered to hold UN supervised elections, Saddam never asked Pope/Archbishop of Canterbury/ the Dalai Lama etc to visit Iraq (thus derailing bushinc's scheme) the Iraqis never announced Saddam was 'resigning' using 3rd world or arabic media, iow the Iraqi hi command cooperated with bushinc?
d) sending the troops over w/out UN declaration against Iraq meant US must use them or the USA would look like a fool, and this was clearly blackmail of USA by bushinc?

Imagine that. In broad daylight, a nuclear power is BLACKMAILED by its own government (and the homer simpson media say 'duh idunno')

We look like complete jerks as a country that is really alone in this war despite the so-called coalition of the willing.

no peon is gonna 'em what to do.

Now who was this senior U.S. official that put this crap out and why??

Are you thinking that this was linked in preparation to lay the blame at the CIA specifically for the war. The article never states who the US official was. Hmmm..

I don't see it on cnn.com, and it's buried on msnbc.com. I didn't hear it on CBS Radio news an hour ago. Now, if he'd seduced someone....

Featured BIG story - among 1st up.

Maybe this is why the repukes are trying to scream about the alleged dem memo "traitors", hmmmmmmmmm?

Perhaps just a little too coincidental?

:thumbsup: to ABC...

They headlined w/ it (it sounds HUGE!!)... Perle was told to decline all offers from Iraq to comply, including offers of UN-monitored free elections, admittance of hundreds of weapon inspectors, etc... Perle told ABC news he was told to decline the offers. Who told him to do so? Wolfowitz? Rummy? Cheney??

10s of thousands of lives and trillion$ of our hard earned salaries which we gave and entrusted to Bush to spend wisely. Why wasn't this the means to peacefully resolve this? Why did our Commander and Chief send our children to die in his place?

Very much the way Hitler did!! No wonder the Evil War Chimp is today the most hated individual on the face of the earth!

Just imagine if YOUR son, YOUR brother, YOUR father, YOUR sister, YOUR mother, or daughter was presently part of the U.S. force in Iraq - how upset and worried sick you'd be every single day!! (Imagine if you yourself were now stuck in that hell hole!) Support our troops, huh? It will be many generations before the U.S. will be able to live down this awful crime against humanity!! I AM AS ASHAMED AS I AM DISGUSTED!!

I just watched this on ABC news..... seems as though mr warmonger perle said the CIA said the offer from saddam was not credible. Lobbing it back at the CIA which is where I think this interesting information came from in the first place! In addition, it seems the DoD wants to deny this was serious stuff because Dr. Hage was not a credible source, like he was some sort of lackey! OMG, this shit is getting deep! Stay tuned....

On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Defense officials were offered a secret, back-channel opportunity to talk peace with Saddam


NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

Nov. 5 — A key member of a secret Bush administration intelligence unit arranged a meeting earlier this year between a top Pentagon official and a wealthy Lebanese-American businessman who was trying to set up back-channel talks with senior aides to Saddam Hussein to avert a war in Iraq, NEWSWEEK has learned.

http://msnbc.com/news/989704.asp?0cl=c1

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031106/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_lebanon&cid=1514&ncid=1480

<snip>Hage said Habbush repeated public denials by the regime that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and offered to allow several thousand US agents or scientists to carry out inspections, according to ABC News.

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

According to Newsweek magazine, the initiative never went anywhere in part because Hage was detained at Washington's Dulles International Airport on suspicions that he was trying to smuggle weapons out of the country.

US Customs inspectors discovered an undeclared semiautomatic .45 caliber pistol and four stun guns in his luggage, the weekly said. They also found he was carrying the business card of Pentagon official Jaymie Durnan.

...this story is moving FAST!

Wasn't it just a week ago that Condi was still blaming "past presidents" for failure to handle terrorists! I guess I'd better go rate it a 5 (if I can).

This is just adding fuel to the fire for all the pre-war information that people want to get their hands on and screams independent investigation! Wow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2022991.stm

The United States refused Iraqi offers to hand over a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Iraq's foreign minister says.

Tariq Aziz told the American news programme 60 Minutes that Iraq had twice offered to hand over Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is in prison in Iraq and is on the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.

And Mr Yasin himself told 60 Minutes that the FBI let him go after interrogating him in the days following the 1993 bombing - even driving him home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/international/worldspecial/05CND-INTEL.html?hp

This needs to be vetted to the American people!

"vetted to the American People."

god, that's so brilliant.

there is no "vetting" unless the American People are involved... what a beautiful observation. remember, however, that it is all about animals, usually. which explains why it's become such a popular term since bush* used it when talking about harken and the SEC. remember harken? remember the SEC?

v. vet·ted, vet·ting, vets
v. tr.
1] To subject to veterinary evaluation, examination, medication, or surgery.


2] To subject to thorough examination or evaluation: vet a manuscript.

:kick:

Who provided the emails and documents to the press?

Amazing.

He or she is probably not willing to use their real name for fear of probable retribution.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!! What's his name?

Behold the evershifting rationales

http://www.ru.org/Iraq-Chomsky-interview.htm

One day the "single question" is whether Iraq will disarm; in today's version (April 12): "We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction -- that is what this war was about and is about." That was the pretext throughout the whole UN-disarmament farce, though it was never easy to take seriously; UNMOVIC was doing a good job in virtually disarming Iraq, and could have continued, if that were the goal. But there is no need to discuss it, because after stating solemnly that this is the "single question," they went on the next day to announce that it wasn't the goal at all: even if there isn't a pocket knife anywhere in Iraq, the US will invade anyway, because it is committed to "regime change." The next day we hear that there's nothing to that either; thus at the Azores summit, where Bush-Blair issued their ultimatum to the UN, they made it clear that they would invade even if Saddam and his gang left the country. So "regime change" is not enough. The next day we hear that the goal is "democracy" in the world. Pretexts range over the lot, depending on audience and circumstances, which means that no sane person can take the charade seriously.

Are they just playing out their role in the grand charade?

Thanks for the link!

the drama that the WH staged, including that they had exhausted all avenues. For those clinging to trying to believe that our government has acted in good faith (ala ... "they have more information than we do, they know what they are doing) - this is one BIG part of the story that unravels that faith. Lots of the public are still in great denial about the true nature of this administration.

News the public has now finally seen/been exposed to:

Rationale for war #1: IMMINENT THREAT:
so now: no wmd
so now: increasing evidence that the intel was available to the admin that there was no wmd, but they chose to ignore it. (okay less of the public is aware of this point)

still not penetrating the public psyche: The degree to which top admin officials were screwing with the process of intel to get cooked results (re: sy hersh's Stovepipe - has not gone beyond New Yorker readers and savvy progressive websites.)

Rationale for war #2: LINK TO ALQUEDA - War on Terror:
so now: even admin says publically - there was never a link between 911 and Saddam.

still not penetrating the public psyche: That the actions of this administration actually have increased the risk to national security regarding "The War on Terror".
1. Pulling troops/troop support from Afghanistan by March 2002 to begin the year long buildup in Iraq.
2. Pulling intelligence OFF of al queada/osama work in Afghanistan and world wide... to help create the public rationale to go to war in Iraq.
3. Blowing up intelligence gathering capability on Weapons of Mass Destruction, in order to protect the WH public image on the rationales for going to war in Iraq (Plame Affair)

AND that the end result was documented regrouping first of al queada by summer 2002 in and around Afghanistan and later the regrouping of the Taliban within Afghanistan, to now - the real fear that the Taliban is regaining control of parts of Afghanistan.

Rationale for war #3: WE HAVE DONE ALL WE CAN - AND IRAQ WON'T COOPERATE - WE MUST ACT... ALONE IF NECESSARY:

now known: UN weapons inspectors were having success - and their findings and intelligence were superior to that of US intelligence (since it was cooked); even GOP on this Hill (Brown - to give cover to WH by painting the CIA as the problem) has said that we should have given more credence to weapons inspectors/UN intelligence.
now known: (THIS STORY) That there were serious attempts to negotiate with the US to prevent the war - including agreements to items that the Admin at the time said were required - and the WH ORDERED these negotiations NOT TO HAPPEN.

Rationale for war #4: Humanitarian - Saddam is a brutal dictator:

This is the only rational that remains. To those desperately clinging to denial about this administration - this is the BIG one left, and for some reason the stories about our support for the Uzbek regime (recently reported as exceptionally brutal, including boiling people to death) - and other CURRENT brutal regimes that we are not rushing in to liberate - just doesn't seem to penetrate the public psyche.

--------------------------
My whole point - is that when the rationales are put together - and the public is confronted with each of these now PUBLIC items it is hard to remain in a state of blind, kneejerk, support for bush at all costs because he is a good and moral man, and his government is good and moral. The problem is that the media doesn't keep looping back and putting the stories together for the public to read as a whole. You can bet that the media talking heads would have put this all as a neat package and public indictment if this had happened under president Clinton or a president Gore. The rightwing talkheads would have started it - and created the media meme - and pushed it straight into the mainstream news. But it isn't happening. Thus - WE have to keep track of the stories that go mainstream - as I have above - and put them together with the public rationale - and get talking - and keep pushing the story as a complete whole. Sooner or later there will be a critical mass that will force the story as a complete whole to break out there - and to pierce the great middle public's awareness and state of denial.

You've summed things up very well.

then how do we expect those that are not paying as close attention, or who are trying to stay in denial (good faith in our government, and all that), to catch the whole pattern which completely discredits this administration? We have to keep putting it together and getting it out there.

Just like the Taliban did in Afghanistan, but the war was pre-planned by the Bush Crime Family. ALL Republican officials and corporatists are traitors to our country

be grilled on it if any dems have the balls to stand up to PNAC & Bushco.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-11052003-191803.html

...who have lied so often that some folks are starting to believe them.

it wasn't even an invasion; it was a "temporary incursion," and certainly not for the cause of "conquest and pillage."

It's you I don't believe.

War is what they wanted.. why would they want to talk.. UN wanted talk.. Bush wanted war..

Bush gets what Bush wants.. He does the ordering, and WE get stuck with the bill :(..

This will go nowhere.. Who is going to press the issue?? The press?? That's a laugh & a half..

A closely contested presidential race is much, much better for ratings than one with a foregone conclusion. :shrug:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06INTE.html?hp

Shocking story that will make the Bush Administration look even worse around the world than they do now.

<snip>In one note to Mr. Perle in mid-March, Mr. Maloof relayed a message from Mr. Hage that Mr. Obeidi and Mr. Habbush "were prepared to meet with you in Beirut, and as soon as possible, concerning `unconditional terms.' " The message from Mr. Hage said, "Such a meeting has Saddam Hussein's clearance."

No meetings took place, and the invasion began on March 20. Mr. Hage wonders what might have happened if the Americans had pursued the back channel to Baghdad.

"At least they could have talked to them," he said.



...at least Indeed! :grr:

Washington - Just days before US-led forces invaded Iraq, officials claiming to speak for a frantic Iraqi regime made a last-ditch effort to avert the war, but US officials rebuffed the overture, according to news reports.

An influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman indicating that Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal, ABC News and The New York Times reported on Wednesday evening.

The chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service and other Iraqi officials had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction and offered to let American troops and experts do an independent search, the Times said. The Iraqi officials also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing who was being held in Baghdad.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1441252,00.html

1) Bush had scheduled it before his election.

2) CIA negotiated with Iraqi general officers before the beginning of the war, even with top members of the Iraqi government (have you any news of them after their arrest ?). In these conditions, any negociations with Saddam was useless. Result : many Iraqi soldiers was killed in their position of defence when they are waiting for orders which never arrived. (Many weapons have been found which never been used)

3) Kurds had been planned to defend the oil fields. They didn't. They reconquered their lost territories first. The US special forces had to be engaged to help them and to avoid exactions against arabian Iraqi population.

It seems to be portrayed by the media as 'Could Bush have avoided war?'

I don't know about you, but in MY universe, Bush STARTED THE WAR! OF COURSE HE COULD HAVE AVOIDED IT!

Is that really in question, "Could Bush have avoided the war?"

Bush pushed for this war and occupation since he got into office. He WANTED this war, and he did everything he could to get it. IN NO WAY was Bush EVER forced into war -- he dragged this country along until he got his way. DON'T EVER FORGET THAT!

Yes we know that they did not have to go to war. They used false pretenses of supposed WMD and national security. Many, myself included thought they were going to war to get the Iraqi's oil. To learn that Iraq was offering oil incentives is a little bit of a surprise. What did the administration really hope to gain by going to war? We know it wasn't democracy and perhaps oil is one part but it may not be the main part. So why blow this country up and alienate the whole world basically making America a prime target of terrorist. I think Michael Moore's theory of this administration's desire to keep us in pertual wars and living under constant threat in order to stay in office is credible.

But no surprise there. However, the interesting thing about this is Perle and friends are trying to lay the blame on others (CIA for sure, but also Rummy?) when the entire time it was the OSP/Rummy/Cheney who were the pushers of this war.

This Hage guy is an OSP connected stooge -

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

So, why is OSP leaking this story now? Like I said yesterday, after Rockefeller's "memo" was leaked (a pre-emptive smear), something's about ready to explode!

This story might be a plant of sorts, because it raises the question, 'could the war have been avoided?' Well, since Bush pushed for it, and started it against the wishes of the world community and millions of US citizens, that should HARDLY be in question, eh?

However, if this story (and it's somewhat dubious source) gets discredited, then the answer to that ridiculous question seems to become 'No, there was no way to avoid war,' which is plainly false on the face of it. But the impression would linger that war was inevitable (when, in fact, it was entirely optional, right up until March 19th).

Ya, think?

He's suggesting it has to do with Maloof's loss of his security clearance last summer.

"Let's say I'm a career defense bureaucrat struggling to get my security clearances restored because it's very hard for me to be a defense bureaucrat without them. And let's say one of the reasons I can't get them restored is because of some unauthorized contacts I had with a Lebanese-American businessman under investigation for running guns to Liberia. And let's further add to the mix that my whole mess with the security clearances is part of a larger struggle between different factions in the national intelligence bureaucracy. Oh, and one last thing: let's say I'm a protégé of Richard Perle.

"Okay.

"Now, if I'm on the line for these unauthorized contacts with the gun-running businessman, wouldn't it be a lot harder to punish me for it if it looked like that contact almost allowed me to secure a deal that would have averted the need for war?"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_11_02.html#002170

So the neo-cons are trying to convince us that THEY were trying to broker a truce, but the CIA scuttled it and so we had to go to war?

Perle and Wolfowitz have crawled out from under their rocks to try to defend their villainous PNAC policies. Whatever convinced BushCo to send THESE lying liars out on the circuit to defend them? Hah!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/134279p-119692c.html

Hage said the Iraqis also offered to cooperate in fighting terrorism, fully support any U.S. plan in the Mideast peace process, give the U.S. "first priority" on Iraqi oil rights and even hold elections.

Importantly, the Iraqis also promised to hand over Abdul Rahman Yasin, who has been indicted in the U.S. in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, according to reports by ABC News and The New York Times.

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

CIA bigwigs later told the Iraqis to take a hike, according to Perle.

One U.S. official told the Daily News that Perle "has created these wild stories before, but he has never been disciplined. This looks to be another round of finger-pointing within the warring administration fiefdoms. The President really needs to put a stop to this," the official said.

Other sources suggested Perle may be trying to take some of the heat off himself by speaking up about the alleged peace overtures. He's among a group of hawks now being blamed for overstating how big a threat Iraq was to U.S. security.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

but if so this could definitely backfire. What would the CIA have to gain by not persuing this offer? The administration would have to make the case for some motive. It would be difficult and negligence won't wash. Also since George Tennet served under the Clinton administration it would look like a personalized witch hunt. What am I saying that's never stopped them before. Never mind.

it includes a vomit inducing photo of perle the traitor...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3247461.stm

If this story can be vetted out, and it looks like it is probably true (because of Perle's statements), then this needs to be pushed hard. This could be a massive weapon against Bush in 2004. He is such scum.

with Ken Pollack "terrorsism expert". He said it was just a "tempest in a teapot"! Nothing to see here....move along everyone! :eyes:

what * was refering to when he stuck his empty head into condi's office and said "fuck Saddam" ?

Iraqi intelligence officials, claiming to have the backing of Saddam Hussein, made a desperate final bid to avoid an invasion on the eve of the American-led war, according to published reports.

According to The New York Times, the Iraqis pledged cooperation in the war on terror, offering to hand over a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center attack who had been detained in Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

then this could be devestating towards the Bush Admin.

If it is true...

1. No WMD excuse; thousands of inspectors are sort of hard to control, don't you think?

2. No humanitarian excuse; free elections.

3. No relationship to Al Qaeda excuse; this was junk from the beginning, but this indicates that Iraq was willing to cooperate somewhat on this.

The Evil Busheviks started this war soley for profits for them and their corporate whore/PNAC minded military industrial complex/big energy/building development cronies - period! The American military now reduced to a private multi-national security force!!

Impeach these fucking monsters now!

:puke:

.