Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 in At TMV | 10 comments

Spanish Newspaper: Bush Planned To Invade Iraq Whether Saddam Complied With UN Or Not

Here’s an item that will spark much debate — not just among partisans, politicos but also perhaps among historians:

El Pais, the highest-circulation daily in Spain, today published what it said was the transcript of a private talk between President George W. Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on February 22, 2003, concerning the coming U.S. invasion of Iraq. It took place at the ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The conversation took place on the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain’s ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.

Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq inf March “if there was a United Nations Security Council resolution or not….We have to get rid of Saddam. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March.”

He said the U.S. takeover would happen without widespread destruction. He observed that he was willing to play bad cop to British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s good cop.

Aznar pleaded for patience and replied that it was vital to get a U.N. resolution, noting that public opinion in Spain was strongly against the war.

This report will have credence because so much has come out since indicating that some key administration members were chomping the bit to invade Iran right after 911 (or before).

TMV thanks Americablog for the tip.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2007 The Moderate Voice
  • Bush’s mad lust to invade is already so obvious that we hardly need this extra bit of evidence, but of course no amount of evidence will change the minds of his supporters and if he had attacked Andorra, he’d still have a hundred reasons why we needed to and why we need to stay the course.

  • krit

    It all goes back to the Project for the New American Century, and the pressure they put on Clinton to invade Iraq. Many of the signatories ended up as high-level Bush administration employees- so their intent was clear as far back as 1998. The only remaining question, is what excuse would have been drummed up to sell the public on a preemptive strike if we hadn’t been attacked on 9/11.

  • Sam

    Wow, so its not just lefty conspiracty theory? Bush really was going to start this war because he wanted to and thats that? Jesus.

  • jdledell

    Bush read Congress and the American public well on Iraq – we wanted and NEEDED more bloody revenge. Afganistan was never going to be enough. We are a very violent country and if you look at our books, video games and movies we seem to need to satiate our hunger for violence.

    Not only do we seem to love wars but if you look at our murder and violent crime rates vs any other developed nation you will see that we have developed into a country that takes what it wants when it wants it.

  • krit

    What’s sickening is how post 9/11 uber-patriotic fervor quickly translated into justification for just about any type of reaction that Bush could dream up. To object in Congress was to jeopardize your career and reputation, as caution and reason were perverted into inviting more attacks on US soil.

    We saw a miniature version of this recently when Congress allowed the administration to pressure it into approving the revamped FISA law by manufacturing a threat that was later found to have been known by them to be fraudulent. Why? Because no one wanted to be later held accountable for allowing another attack by handcuffing our intelligence agencies.

  • krit

    If you connect all the dots including Chuck Hagel’s admission that the initial plan that was presented to Congress in 2002 would have allowed US forces to invade any country in the ME that they chose to– it reveals that the real goal was US domination of the region.
    Add to that Greenspan’s revelation that the war was basically about oil—- and it doesn’t paint a pretty picture of our intentions.

    Looks like the left had it right all along.

  • DLS

    the war was basically about oil

    Of course it was. It is a vital US and Western interest.

  • krit

    Yes, but does that give us the right to invade any country we want to to plunder their oil supply? Are you not even a little shocked that Bush was ready to just roll through the entire ME and remake it in our image?

  • Entropy

    Uh, the title of this post is completely misleading:

    Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq inf March “if there was a United Nations Security Council resolution or not

    Bush was going to invade regardless of a UNSC resolution, not, as the title suggests, if Saddam “complied” or not.

    In any event, WTF is up with that transcript? Even Bush could not butcher the English language so bad. I’m afraid I have to view this article with a very high degree of skepticism.

  • Lynx

    Entropy, you’re right about the horrific nature of the English in that transcript, but I’m willing to bet that has a lot less to do with Bush than with the people who did the transcript. I live in Spain and I can tell you that really good English skills here are rare, for a European country. As shameful as it is, I could imagine perfectly well a situation where proper grammer was not a particular priority, even in a top level transcript.

    Now, I’m willing to believe this conversation took place, especially because making something like this up could get you into very serious trouble…however I think a warning is in order. El Pais is a top newspaper no doubt, but they aren’t even-handed. Staunch supporters of the PSOE party (the one currently in power) and therefore enemies of the PP party (the one Aznar belongs to, the one that joined the “coalition of the willing”). They have an agenda, and that is to weaken the PP party as much as posible, especially through it’s biggest lightning rod, Aznar.

    That doesn’t mean the piece is false, in the least, but it does mean that at least one grain of salt is in order.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com