Bush originally wanted to let Saddam go free

Jeanna, on the POAC forum has some interesting points to make in a thread she titled: SADDAM WOULD HAVE BEEN FREE IF BUSH GOT HIS WAY

(March 18, 2003)
"Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours," Bush said during a prime-time address to the nation. "Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing."

And from the L.A. Times, January 31, 2003:
"WASHINGTON — President Bush said for the first time Thursday that he would welcome exile for Saddam Hussein, and a meeting between the president and a top Saudi official touched off a flurry of speculation that a credible effort is underway to offer a haven to the Iraqi leader.

...Bush was the very first to offer Saddam a way to escape his past, escape punishment, and escape from Iraq.

If Saddam had worked with bush, Saddam would be free today and for many tomorrows. How would bush spin that?

Of course, now he's saying Saddam ought to be executed, and the world is better off without Saddam.

Here's an excerpt from that LA Times link:

Details of the exile package envisioned by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal were not released. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "The less said, the better."

Saud, who is understood to be spearheading the effort, insisted that the subject of exile never came up in his meeting with the president. Saudi Arabia and other Muslim neighbors of Iraq, which held a recent conference in Turkey on the exile option, have refused public comment and maintain that they do not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries.

But Bush and other administration officials were talking openly about it.

"Certainly, if Saddam Hussein were to leave, and his son stayed behind and his son had weapons of mass destruction, the world would be just as much at risk," Fleischer said. Any successor regime would have to be dedicated to peace and disarmament, Fleischer said, but he wouldn't speculate on how many members of Hussein's family or entourage would have to leave the country in order to meet the U.S. demand for a changed regime.

Earlier this month, Iraq's ambassador to Moscow, Abbas Khalaf, dismissed the prospect of Hussein going into exile as "nonsense."

"He is one of the leaders who will never leave his country and will fight till the last drop of blood," said Khalaf, who denied reports that Hussein was considering going into exile in Libya.

...Bush administration support for exile as a last-ditch alternative, first enunciated by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and backed enthusiastically this week by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, appears to be growing.

"There may be a bit of grasping at straws here," Walker said. But "there isn't a country out there that doesn't see it as easier and more convenient for them if there isn't an invasion and Saddam just disappears."

The report discusses why and why not Saudi Arabia would consider taking Saddam into exile. But back up a bit to that denial about reports that Hussein was considering going into exile in Libya.

I saw something about that earlier, and I posted on it here. I also asked around for more information about this from a few bloggers and website authors, but those that answered didn't have anything to offer.

While I feel certain Saddam was a captive for a long time, I don't have enough information to have any sense of who had him or where (although I am also certain that the CIA is involved). This bit about Libya is very intriguing, though, because of that deal with the arms shipments. That report (from my ealier post) which I was asking people about said that the U.S. proposed deal was for Libya to take Hussein in exchange for armaments! Now, of course, that would have not gone over well. But look at this: Hussein went missing, and Libya now has armaments that were sold to Yemen via North Korea - a shipment of arms that America first had Spain stop and then let go.

Who's on first?

I don't know. Pretty interesting.