Ceptin' this guy. As Congress debates passing an additional $190 billion on top of the previous billions we've already spent on the war, a transcript surfaces showing Awol von Retard rejected an offer from Saddam to leave voluntarily if he was allowed to keep $1 billion of his own money. And it was even written phonetically.
Saddam Hussein was prepared to take $1 billion and go into exile before the Iraq war, according to a transcript of talks between Bush and the Spanish Prime Minister.Sigh.
During a meeting in Crawford on February 22, 2003, Bush told Jose Maria Aznar that Saddam could also be assassinated, according to the transcript.
"Saddam Hussein won't change and he'll keep on playing games. The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is," Bush said.
2 comments:
Was there every any doubt? Maybe it's cuz I'm a mom but I can usually spot a liar and when Bush went on tv with black-beady eyes and announced the 48hr warning, I knew he was lying.
Well DUH. Why on earth would Bush accept Saddam's offer - it would scuttle well-laid plans to transfer hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars to Bush's cronies.
THAT is what war is about - always and everywhere. It is about increasing the reach of the State, but primarily it is about enriching those who underwrite the rise to power of the Prince.
Anybody who understands economics will tell you that it ALWAYS costs more to accrue resources if you take (and hold) them by force - even if the people from whom you're taking them are naked savages with nothing more than pointed sticks.
But the key thing is that those who accrue control over the conquered resources (let's call them 'cronies') are NOT the same group as those who pay for the conquest (let's call them 'taxpayers'). Often, government troops are used to guard privately-owned, government granted concessions over resources (and it has always been thus - the British, Spanish and Portugese Empires used to do the same thing). Annd nowhere has it EVER resulted in a fall in the consumer price of the resource in question.
Take a look at current Oil prices. NO WAY was Iraq about ensuring cheap flow of oil to US consumers. It was about ensuring a huge flow of PROFITS to US oil companies - by several mechanisms:
(1) a higher oil prices makes exploration and development of US fields (and fields owned globally by US companies) more profitable;
(2) existing resource bases get revalued upwards, which enables higher credit ratings on corporate debt (reducing interest costs by hundreds of millions off dollars - you never develop an oil field using cash);
(3) CRACK spreads (the differential between the cost of crude and the cost of gasoline and diesel) widen - that is, there is more profit per unit of crude. (Technological advance usually means a NARROWING crack spread, since it costs less to refine a barrel using newer technology).
Aside from that, one need only look at the AMEX Defence stocks index - up by more than 3 times the rate of the broader S&P. Massive amounts of tax dollars going to enrich stockholders in General Dynamics, Raytheon, and other purveyors of Death Porn.
Smedley Butler said it best - War is a Racket... MaruTheCrank, you ought to have a link to an online version of his work.
And annyone who thinks that teh other side of the aisle is somehow less bloodsoaked than the incumbent, is kidding themselves - I find it hilarious that people who deride stupid religiosity in others, have the same naive belief in one or other team in the democracy game. It is all belief in a nonexistent Sky Wizard.
Cheerio,
GT
France
Post a Comment