Article

2003-11-06 Iraq

Baghdad Made Last-Ditch Try to Avoid War

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-11-06 9:51:28 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Steve, This story is being disputed: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102346,00.html

This is the money shot from the article:"One U.S. official told Fox News that while there were numerous offers and leads as the war neared, they were all thoroughly investigated and it was determined that they weren't in a position to deliver anything that would have been acceptable to the United States." Sounds like more left wing wishful thinking.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-11-6 10:51:09 AM|| 2003-11-6 10:51:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 It doesn't matter whether the story is true or not. Saddam's time was simply up, and administration officials acted properly in dismissing the overtures if the story is true. He had his chances, passed them by, and paid the price for his reckless gambling. Game over.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-6 10:51:22 AM|| 2003-11-6 10:51:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Bomb-a-rama: what you said. This is just political jimmy-jammy.

Posted by Secret Master 2003-11-6 11:36:32 AM|| [www.budgetwarrior.com] 2003-11-6 11:36:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 So, if true, Saddam was willing to turn over an AQ member who's been there since 1994?

No ties my #)$*#(!

Posted by Anonymous-not above 2003-11-6 11:41:11 AM|| 2003-11-6 11:41:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Oh, I agree the story is B.S. But you know that the dimocraps and their media wing will play it as another opportunity that Bush passed up because he wanted a war.

Posted by Steve 2003-11-6 11:55:02 AM|| 2003-11-6 11:55:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Even assuming this story is all true, this is no different from what goes on in any war. For example, minor civilian officials both North and South made independent attempts during the American Civil War to start negotiations about peace terms.

They ended up going nowhere for the same reason stated by the unnamed U.S official in Cyber Sarge's snippet from Fox News: the people putting out peace feelers were not in a position to actually deliver.

Posted by Carl in N.H. 2003-11-6 11:58:57 AM|| 2003-11-6 11:58:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Saddam was interviewed on national TV by Dan Rather. He could have made an offer right there...

Posted by Seafarious 2003-11-6 12:17:03 PM|| 2003-11-6 12:17:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Saddam was interviewed on National TV by Dan Rather. He could have made an offer right there...

Only if he knew the right frequency!

Posted by Jack is Back! 2003-11-6 1:29:07 PM|| 2003-11-6 1:29:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Only if he knew the right frequency

LOL

Posted by Kenneth 2003-11-6 2:16:08 PM|| 2003-11-6 2:16:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I like Stephen ("VodkaPundit") Green's take:

The anti-war folks will tell you this story (if true, although I have no reason to doubt it) startles because we rejected such a generous offer. Surely, they'll claim, the chance of inspections led by the US military and the promise of free elections made avoidable (or at least delay-able) the horrors of war.

Oh, please. Some back-channel promises made by a guy who knows a guy who knows Saddam weren't going to stop a just and necessary war. And yet I still find this story a bit shocking.

Why?

Because of how brick-chewingly stupid Saddam was, yet again.

Here's a guy with a decade's experience in foiling the US and playing to the world's (admittedly cynical) sympathies. And yet he still offered US weapons inspections and free elections through secret back channels.

What if Saddam had made his offer publicly? British public opinion might very well have forced even Tony Blair into abandoning an immediate war -- and Saddam could have gone back to playing hide-and-seek, while the promised elections were quietly rigged (or sadly failed to materialize). And there you have it: the 21st Century's Biggest Political Blunder.

Of course, the century is still young. . .

Posted by Mike 2003-11-6 2:22:54 PM|| 2003-11-6 2:22:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 All Saddam had to do is have his UN Ambassador stand up in the General Assembly and say we will comply 100% with the inspections regime. No minders, no discussions on the composition of the inspectors and no problems with taking scientists out of the country for talks. One short speech and he would still be in power. This back channel stuff is total crap.

Posted by Yank 2003-11-6 3:15:55 PM|| 2003-11-6 3:15:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 The basics of story do sound consistant with Saddam's previous diplomacy.Remember,there have been several posts lately discussing back channel meetings with French and Russians.This attempt would have been a good way to determine American resolve-were the Americans willing to cut a deal or were they determined to oust Saddam.If the Americans indicated a willingness to talk,the back channel could have been used to stall for a while negotiating,and at end Saddam could nix any deal,saying they were not accreddited members of his gov't.At any he could leak fact US and Iraq were negotiating in private thereby undercutting US.As part of a policy of delay,delay,delay and hope US gives up this makes sense.

Posted by Stephen 2003-11-6 6:48:03 PM|| 2003-11-6 6:48:03 PM|| Front Page Top

10:25 Daniel King
08:46 Raptor
01:04 Dar
23:48 chriskarma
23:15 Raj
22:54 Seafarious
22:48 Raj
22:13 Jarhead
22:13 Bomb-a-rama
22:09 Fred
21:58 Christopher Johnson
21:56 Jarhead
21:54 Robert Crawford
21:48 Angie Schultz
21:45 IceCold
21:17 Parabellum
20:40 djh
20:29 Rafael
20:26 Old Grouch
20:05 .com (RoPMA)
20:00 Jarhead
19:59 Barbara Skolaut
19:57 Tim
19:44 Michael