1
   

Iraq War Could Have Been Avoided?

 
 
pistoff
 
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:40 pm
Iraq War Could Have Been Avoided?

Quote:
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.

* * *

A week later, according to Hage, he and an associate were asked to come to Baghdad, when Hage says he met with Saddam Hussein's chief of intelligence, Gen. Tahir Habbush, later labeled the Jack of Diamonds in the deck of cards depicting the most-wanted members of Saddam Hussein's regime. Habbush is still at large.

"He was conveying a message," said Hage. "He was conveying an offer." Hage said Habbush laid out terms of a negotiated peace during a four-hour session beginning at midnight at a compound in Baghdad.

Hage said Habbush repeated public denials by the regime that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but offered to allow several thousand U.S. agents or scientists free rein in the country to carry out inspections. "Based on my meeting with his man," said Hage, "I think an effort was there to avert war. They were prepared to meet with high-ranking U.S. officials."

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

(Yasin is one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, indicted in connection with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Hage says Habbush claimed the United States had refused earlier offers to turn him over. Yasin remains at large and is now thought to be one of the people behind the recent wave of attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.)

Throughout the period of the negotiations claimed by Hage, the Bush administration publicly maintained it would not conduct negotiations with Baghdad to avoid a war that did not first involve the unconditional departure of Saddam Hussein from Iraq or his surrender.

But Richard Perle, then chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board, said in the weeks leading up to war 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.

According to Pentagon e-mails obtained by ABCNEWS, Hage's report of the Iraqi offer was forwarded to Defense Department officials on Feb. 20, including Jaymie Durnan, who at the time was the top aide to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. However, Pentagon officials said Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were not aware of the talks.

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

*If this is indeed factual I believe that the Pres., VP and the rest of the staff should be charged with fraud by the Justice Dept. with an Independent Prosecuter to investigate the fraud.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,837 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:54 pm
The majority of Americans wanted the war; they got their war.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 11:45 pm
The majority wanted war?
"Wanted" ?

I don't think so. I believe that many people were conned into supporting an illegal pre-emptive invasion of a country that was no threat to the USA. Around 10 Million people on this planet protested against this idiotic pre-emptive strike!!!

I call it "false advertising". Fraud!!! Those responsible should be prosecuted.

I also feel that Shrub & Cheney should be impeached!!!!

In fact, I feel that these two should be charged with murders!!!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 08:07 am
Whether this story has legs, a total or partial fabrication I have no idea. However, if it does I believe those in government who perpetrated this crime and it is a crime. Should be charged with mass murder and suffer the same fate as the Nazi's at the Nuerenburg trials.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 08:14 am
Pistoff's Article wrote:
One U.S. intelligence officer said there were several attempts to meet with Iraqi intelligence officers but they didn't show up.

"Iraq and Saddam had ample opportunity through highly credible sources over a period of several years to take serious action to avoid war and had the means to use highly credible channels to do that ?- nobody needed to use questionable channels to convey messages," Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Larry DiRita told ABCNEWS.

And a senior White House official said the United States exhausted every legitimate opportunity to resolve it peacefully and it was "Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to comply after 12 years and some 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions, including one final opportunity, that forced the coalition to act to ensure compliance."

The official also added that Saddam was given 48 hours notice to leave before the United States initiated military action.


Nuremburg trials? Are you serious? No war crimes have been commited, at least by the US. Just because you don't like the war does not make it illegal.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 08:31 am
If war could have been avoided and it wasn't I would call it murder.
Do you like war? If so why don't you join in. They could use some more cannon fodder in Iraq.

As for it being illegal. I would call it malfeasence in office for the president of the US to invade another country based on a lie. And this if it is true only adds to his crime.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 08:58 am
New York Times online is also reporting on the story:

Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 11:17 am
And to think that Bill Clinton was impeached essentially because of a blow job!!!!

If this pathetic group of misfits is not thrown out next year, I will question the sanity of the American public.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 01:29 pm
The truth shall set you free

THE MURKY OVERTURE?-which bypassed normal diplomatic procedures?-never went anywhere in part because immediately after the meeting, the businessman, Imad El-Hage, was detained at Washington's Dulles International Airport on suspicions that he was trying to smuggle weapons out of the country. U.S. Customs inspectors discovered an undeclared semiautomatic .45 caliber pistol and four stun guns in El-Hage's luggage. They also found he was carrying the business card of Pentagon official Jaymie Durnan. Although he was questioned by FBI agents, El-Hage was allowed to board a plane home to Lebanon because he was carrying a Liberian diplomatic passport.

In any event, Pentagon officials insisted the businessman's approach was never taken seriously and likened it to one of many "crackpot" ideas that got presented to the U.S. government on the eve of war. Nevertheless, the meeting between El-Hage and Durnan, then special assistant to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, has attracted the attention of congressional investigators who are probing the Bush administration's handling of intelligence during the run up to the war on Iraq.

Sources tell NEWSWEEK that investigators want to know if White House officials blew an opportunity to avoid an invasion of Iraq. Others see the meeting, and others that took place overseas involving Pentagon officials as part of a secretive intelligence operation that was set up by administration hard-liners within the Defense Department and functioned outside the boundaries of the U.S. intelligence community?-and without congressional oversight. "It was a renegade operation," says one Democratic investigator. But Bush administration officials insist the secret intelligence team was a benign effort to alert policymakers to proposals and information that was being ignored by the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.

Still, El-Hage's purported peace overture sheds new light on the back-channel diplomacy that involved some Bush administration officials on the eve of war. The story begins late last year when the CIA was approached by Syrian intermediaries with an unusual offer that reportedly came from Lt. Gen. Tahir Jalil Habbush, Saddam Hussein's chief of intelligence. The Iraqis allegedly wanted to avert war and were willing to go to great lengths to appease the Bush administration, which eventually might have included permitting the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq and free elections.

The CIA attempted to follow up by arranging to discuss the proposal directly with Iraqi officials at several meetings in Morocco. But the Iraqis never showed up, causing the agency to conclude the whole idea was a nonstarter.

This in turn triggered new overtures on behalf of the plan by El-Hage, whose Beirut-based insurance conglomerate, American Underwriters Group, does extensive business in Africa, including dealings with the government of now deposed Liberian president Charles Taylor, sources said. El-Hage contacted Michael Maloof, a veteran Defense Department intelligence and export-control official. Maloof cofounded a secret Pentagon intelligence unit that was assigned the job of investigating links between Al Qaeda operatives and secular Arab governments that conservatives have long suspected of having links to international terrorism, including the Saudis and the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein.

Sources say Maloof arranged for El-Hage to meet with Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board and an influential advisor to top Pentagon policymakers Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Perle told NEWSWEEK that he had several meetings with El-Hage last year "on a variety of issues," and at one point the Lebanese businessman tried to retain him as a consultant?-an offer he said he summarily rejected. At his last meeting with El-Hage in London, Perle said, the businessman pushed a purported Iraqi peace overture. "I didn't take this very seriously," Perle said.

Maloof also set up a meeting for El-Hage with Durnan, a senior aide to Wolfowitz on Jan. 28, 2003. Durnan confirmed he met with El-Hage and Maloof at a downtown Washington coffee shop next to the Army-Navy Club. During their half-hour meeting, Durnan said, El-Hage claimed he could arrange for Hizbollah, the Iranian-backed terrorist group, and the Syrian Intelligence services to "help us with Iraq." But he said he remembered little else about the meeting and didn't recall El-Hage pushing any particular peace plan. "I just listened to him," Durnan said. "It was a nonevent." Durnan said he instructed Maloof that if he thought there was any follow up to be done with El-Hage's overture, Maloof should take it up with Defense policy officials not him.

Internal Pentagon e-mails indicate, however, that in late February?-nearly a month after his coffee-shop meeting with El-Hage?-Durnan sent messages to other Pentagon officials inquiring about what intelligence agencies knew about the Beirut businessman. "Has the intel community come up with anything on the Lebanese american [sic] I met with a couple of weeks ago. It is important," Durnan wrote on Feb. 20. The next day, Durnan sent intelligence aides a follow up insisting: "I need an answer today. Please check with the entire intel community." Durnan's queries appear to have been launched in response to a message Maloof received on Feb. 19 from El-Hage?-which was then forwarded to the Pentagon?-in which El-Hage reported that he had just returned from meetings in Iraq with Saddam aides Habbush, Tariq Aziz, Amer Saadi and Naji Sabri.
Those men wanted a confidential meeting with a top U.S. representative to discuss Iraqi concessions including support for any U.S. proposals for an Arab/Israel peace plan, cooperation with the United States against terrorists and giving the United States "1st priority" [sic] for Iraqi oil rights. Sources say Maloof later relayed to the Pentagon even more detailed proposals, which included a plan that would allow the deployment of 5,000 U.S. troops?-and possibly other experts?-in Iraq as weapons inspectors and a commitment to conduct free elections at some point in the near future. Asked about his February e-mails, Durnan said: "I wasn't concerned about the issues. I was concerned that [El-Hage] had my name and phone number and that I could become a target of some a?-hole from the Middle East."

Pentagon officials insist that any suggestion that El-Hage's offers could have avoided war is nonsense. "Iraq and Saddam had ample opportunity through highly credible sources over a period of several years to take serious action to avoid war and had the means to use highly credible channels to do that," says Larry DiRita, chief of Pentagon public affairs. "Nobody needed to use questionable channels to convey messages."

Questions about El-Hage soon cast a cloud over the whole matter. Only hours after his meeting with Durnan, as El-Hage was attempting to board an overseas flight at Dulles Airport, he was stopped for questioning by U.S. customs investigators after screeners discovered the semiautomatic pistol and stun guns in his luggage. El-Hage had failed to obtain an export license for the pistol and also had failed to declare it to the airline, according to sources.

After FBI and Customs agents allowed El-Hage to leave on a flight home to Lebanon, FBI agents contacted Durnan and arranged to question him as a result of the discovery of his business card in El-Hage's possessions. Durnan told NEWSWEEK he actually never gave El-Hage his card. He later learned that Maloof had done so. "I was pissed," Durnan said.

Customs agents also seized El-Hage's handgun, which sources say he had been given for personal protection by a cousin. Later, Maloof contacted Customs in posession of a power-of-attorney signed by El-Hage in an effort to get the gun back.

Several weeks later, in mid-April of this year, a Defense Intelligence Agency panel revoked Maloof's high-level security clearances. The defense official had originally lost his clearances in December 2001, allegedly for failing to properly report his second marriage to a citizen of a former Soviet republic. But the clearances later were restored after intervention by senior Pentagon civilians.

Sources say that Maloof and his close associates believe his clearances were revoked for the second time because both the CIA and DIA were angry with him for questioning official analyses that played down alleged state sponsorship of Al Qaeda, and that Maloof's role in introducing El-Hage to Durnan was characterized by his enemies in the intelligence world as evidence that Maloof and other Pentagon hard-liners were conducting "rogue operations" behind the backs of the CIA and DIA. But Maloof's associates insist he kept top intelligence and defense officials fully informed of all of his dealings with El-Hage over the purported Iraqi-Syrian peace proposal.

Maloof, who is currently on paid leave from the Pentagon, declined to comment for this story.

After stories about the El-Hage gun incident appeared in two U.S. regional newspapers, the Arab TV station Al-Jazeera picked up on the story, and El-Hage was subsequently attacked by gunmen in Lebanon in what his associates believe was an assassination attempt. El-Hage could not be immediately reached for comment.

A senior U.S. intelligence official said: "During the run up to the war there were a wide variety of people sending signals that some Iraqis might have an interest in negotiation. These signals came via a broad range of foreign intelligence services, other governments, third parties, charlatans and independent actors. Every lead that was at all plausible?-and some that weren't?-were followed up. In the end, we were aware of no one in a position to make any deal anywhere near acceptable to the United States."
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 03:35 pm
Acceptable?
I wonder what would have been acceptable to the US Govt. regarding avoiding pre-emptive invasion?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 03:39 pm
Re: Acceptable?
pistoff wrote:
I wonder what would have been acceptable to the US Govt. regarding avoiding pre-emptive invasion?


You mean short of Saddam Hussein hanging himself in public?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 03:43 pm
That would have been a good one!

Oh! And another would have been being more cooperative the past 12 years and maybe following some of the UNSC resolutions...oh and maybe had Saddam not been such a prick to his people...you know, with the mass graves and the rapings and murders...

OH! One more thing...had he not had the weapons of mass destruction.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 03:44 pm
Yeah, that.
I believe that the Neo-cons were Hell bent to carry this pre-emptive invasion out no matter what the cost in lives or expense. They are true believers. The most dangerous kind of zealots right next to radical fundamentalist Muslims.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 03:54 pm
Could be. They also use microwaves to read peoples minds, but those can be blocked with aluminum foil. Keep that in mind you walk around those "cell phone towers".
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 04:32 pm
Quote:
For several seconds after the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) drilled through the back of their armored M113 "battle taxi," the soldiers inside, mainlining adrenaline, continued firing. Then they started screaming. "It blew my leg clean off," says Private First Class Tristan Wyatt, who was standing at the rear of the armored personnel carrier, unloading an M-240 machine gun at a dozen or more Iraqis who had ambushed them minutes before. He was the first to be hit. The RPG then passed through Sergeant Erick Castro's hip, spinning him violently to the floor. His left leg was still attached ?- but barely. "I picked up my leg and put it on the bench," he says, "and lay down next to it." Finally, the RPG shredded Sergeant Mike Meinen's right leg. "It was pretty much torn off," he says. "There was just some meat and tendons holding it on."

* * *

The medic, the wounded soldiers and their comrades began a frantic race against the clock. Buddies pressed their hands into Castro's hip wound to keep him from bleeding to death. The wound was so massive that his tourniquet was useless. He handed it to Wyatt, who needed two to stanch the blood flowing from his femoral artery. Amid the mayhem, Meinen, who had been manning a 50-cal. machine gun, noticed that he didn't have any feeling in his right foot. "It felt like it had gone to sleep on me, so I picked my foot up and was trying to massage it, trying to get the feeling back," he says. "But then it dawned on me: it wasn't even connected. So I put it on the floor."

They tried to raise their wounded legs to slow the bleeding. "There was nothing to elevate my leg except for the piece of my leg that had been blown off from the knee down," Wyatt says. "So I took my leg and jammed it under the stump to keep it pointing up. It was kind of messy."



To my mind, the most poignant and heartbreaking part of the story comes near the end:

Quote:
The three wounded soldiers are united not only in their good humor but also their unequivocal support for the war. Wyatt doesn't much care for those who think Bush fudged the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. "That makes you feel like you fought for nothing or you fought for a liar," he says. "They're telling me I went out there and I got my leg blown off for a liar, and I know that's just not true."


TIME: The Wounded Come Home
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 05:00 pm
Reality sucks.
Quote:
"Wyatt doesn't much care for those who think Bush fudged the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. "That makes you feel like you fought for nothing or you fought for a liar," he says. "They're telling me I went out there and I got my leg blown off for a liar, and I know that's just not true."


True Believers. Rolling Eyes Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 05:03 pm
No, not true believers, just folks who don't wish to think they've sacrificed for no reason.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 05:10 pm
McGentrix wrote:
That would have been a good one!

Oh! And another would have been being more cooperative the past 12 years and maybe following some of the UNSC resolutions...oh and maybe had Saddam not been such a prick to his people...you know, with the mass graves and the rapings and murders...

OH! One more thing...had he not had the weapons of mass destruction.



Well, maybe the first few, but not that last one.

Bush knows of several countries that ACTUALLY HAVE weapons of mass destruction. He wants no part of them.

If he goes against a country WITH WMD's -- they might carry the war to him -- and there is no way he is interested in getting hurt.

When he says, "Bring 'em on" -- he means, I've got people I can sent to fight them -- not that he personally would have anything to do with that kind of stuff.

In any case, nothing but the removal of Saddam meant anything to Dubya. He just wanted to get Saddam because Saddam had caused daddy Bush so much trouble.

The rest of that stuff was window dressing for you gullible types.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 05:26 pm
One more time.
"I know that's just not true."

True believer. Rolling Eyes

Will 50,000 more troops quell the resistence to occupation?
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2003 04:46 pm
Dreamers and Idiots
Dreamersand Idiots
Britain and the US Did Everything to Avoid a Peaceful Solution in Iraq and Afghanistan
by George Monbiot


Quote:
None of this matters to the enthusiasts for war. That these conflicts were unjust and illegal, that they killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians, is irrelevant, as long as their aims were met. So the hawks should ponder this. Had a peaceful resolution of these disputes been attempted, Bin Laden might now be in custody, Iraq might be a pliant and largely peaceful nation finding its own way to democracy, and the prevailing sentiment within the Muslim world might be sympathy for the United States, rather than anger and resentment.



http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1111-05.htm











http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1111-05.htm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iraq War Could Have Been Avoided?
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 10:37:49