The Spanish Downing Street memo?
In February 2003, the president was insistent that he hoped to find a peaceful solution to his standoff with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and would work with and through the United Nations to resolve the conflict. At least, that was what he was saying publicly.
According to a new report published today by El Pais, Spain’s largest daily newspaper, Bush told then-Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the time that he was going to invade Iraq no matter what happened. Spanish speakers can read the transcript of their discussion — I’m a little rusty — but E&P has a report on the revelations.
Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq in 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.
According to the transcript, Aznar asked Bush to be more patient and emphasized the importance of a U.N. resolution. The president said he was out of patience. Aznar said he was worried that Bush was overly optimistic about what would happen. Bush reportedly said, “I am optimistic because I believe I am right. I am at peace with myself.”
Primero.
Chimpy is a lying ba$tard... who will ever believe him again?! Not me!!
Tercero...
Wingnuts still use the "I believe..." to start their declarative sentences. Like, well, if they believe strongly enough, then can they really be faulted if it doesn't go the way they intended?
Uhm, yes. Yes they can.
It's Peter Pan politics. Wingnuts think they can "wish" reality into being.
Bush reportedly said, “I am optimistic because I believe I am right. I am at peace with myself.”
It's all about you, isn't it Mr. Bush.
Seriously, is there some mechanism for removing the president and such from office when deemed mentally unstable? The constitution says there shall be no religious test for office. Well, perhaps there should be a mental health test.
If there are no legal means to remove dangerous people like this from office then perhaps it is time to try some illegal means.
Why of why is that man and his cabal of criminals not rotting in jail awaiting their executions for crimes against humanity? It amazes me to no end that people still treat him and his crime gang with any respect. Not a single one of them deserves any.
Como esta, asshole bush?
There's not a lot new in this one, sadly. We already had information about the minutes from the Bush/Blair meeting of Jan. 31, 2003 where Bush was saying some truly bizarre things about trying to provoke Hussein into a shooting war, and where he admits that the UN inspectors aren't going to find any weapons.
The Spanish minutes add little more than that by late February Bush had settled on an invasion date after March 15 (and that that was based on when US troops were ready to invade). There's also the posturing about dragging Hussein before the world court. Whatever happened to that plan?
It wasn't the only reason, and maybe not the most important one, but remember somebody told him he couldn't be a "great" president unless he was a wartime president. They sure knew how to feed his ego.
And everyone else has had to pay for it.
Zombies are always pretty much at peace with themselves.
And their grammar's usually bad too, as with the Zombie-in-Chief, who today said:
"As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."
High standards. Measured results. Yeah.
Does this mean GW Bush can be held accountable for murder? I am having a hard time seeing the US as moral anymore. There are the crack-pot Christians who get their panties all wadded up over sex, other people's embryos and naughty words, but how can we imagine ourselves as Moral when we allow elected leaders to commit war crimes??
Sigh. First they came for the liberals.
If this is actually a fact, this will add one more evidence that BUSH was intent on attacking IRAQ even if it meant fixing intelligence or lying to the public.
IMPEACH....
Oh, gee whilikers, maybe this will be the straw that makes the ball-less Dems put "impeachment on the table."
I'm going to hold my breath now!
(Someone call 911 in about 5 minutes...or at least pour beer down my throat.)
Sign me,
"Emasculated"
I'm so tired of this...
I can not tell you the hate I have for this poor exquse of human beings. Please if there is a god do not make us live under this kind of hell. Or is this what God wants for its people? Of corse GWB talks to god. Iforgot. Well there is no god. thank you.
We are holding a live chat during the Democratic presidential debate. Chat with fellow progressives as you watch live on MSNBC. Just enter a nickname and you are set.
http://www.thebluestate.com
Proud American @ 13:
Will never happen.
Bush and Cheney could play a game of kickball on the white house lawn with a newborn baby, during the middle of a press conference.
The media would interview anyone who had a problem with this and ask:
"You don't like sports? You America hating terrorist!"
LEAVE PRESIDENT BUSH ALOOONNE!!!! LEAVE HIM ALOOONNE!! IT'S NOT HIS FAULT!! **sobbing**
But seriously; reality really does have a liberal bias
Eamon @ 18:
Actually, liberals have a reality bias.
Bush always thinks he's right which is why there is no peace
Somewhere there is a singular MSM report of the ultimatum given Saddam in the hours before the first invasion: leave the country and we'll spare your ass and your country. Bush and Cheney gave Saddam a certain time by which to respond. Saddam met the deadline, but Cheney convinced Bush to ignore the deadline in the interim no matter what the answer was, and bomb him anyway.
I read this. I thought I saved it. I can't find it. BUT I REMEMBER IT.
right on! @ 2:
Who ever believed him in the first place?
It is not hard for me to hold the democrats responsible for not impeaching this bastard but on the same hand we the people gave them "ALMOST" enough tools to work with and then ask them to convince the lockstep repugnants to go along with taking down their GOD
Get fucking real people
The same sentiment is heard in padded cells and mental institutions around the world... George W. Bush is the Charles Manson of American Politics.
RagingGurrl @ 5:
Well, he's the only person in the world he allows to be at peace.
Bush is obviously mentally ill, and all of the morally bankrupt follow along try to reap the spoils. . .
Rene ala Carte @ 10:
Maybe, but i remember reading that he came out of a meeting with Paul Wolfowitz in 1994 saying that if he was President he would invade Iraq. I personally believe this is why and how he got to BE President.
The Spanish Downing Street memo!
(i fixed your headline)
The permanent US Embassy in Iraq will be bigger than Vatican City and cost over a billion dollars. A large contingent of US troops will be necessary to protect the complex and our oil interest in Iraq. Any politician who promises to leave Iraq now or any time in the foreseeable future is a lying sack of crap.
Cythraul @ 17:
The above graphic image needs to be made into a new political cartoon in my opinion.
Okay. now we've got the British Downing Street Memo to indict Bush with as well as the Spanish version. How many indictments do we need before congress takes the action mandated by the constitution as well as their oath of office? Impeachment is not a "choice"; rather impeachment is a mandate and Congress does not have the luxury of bringing action toward impeachment or not - they must when there is evidence that a high crime has been committed.
Congress: How much more prima facie evidence do you need? Get off your asses and finally DO SOMETHING to help save this democracy from pending and obvious implosion.
This proof is among many other facts with documents that the White House has lied from day one yet Americans sit back and say/do nothing. Bush/Cheney planned this to steal Iraq oil and it worked. Now we know the Pakistan President was telling the truth that Bush/Cheney threaten to bomb countries if they didn't join in the illegal invasion. Yes some countries got money and others got both money and weapons. No wonder the US National Debt is 9 Trillion dollars and continuing to go up. Now Americans are allowing Bush/Cheney to illegally bomb Iran for it's oil. We have no troops to send so Cheney will just bomb Iran.
Americans will realize to late and the United Nations will step in as all the countries join Iran against the United States. We have no shame in this country we let hired Killers like Blackwater go out to kill innocent Iraq men/women/children and even kill Pat Tillman and others soldiers that the White House ordered killed.
What a proud nation the United States of American has come to be under the leadership of a drunken/coward/weak President Bush and a sick/evil/ Satan worshipper President Cheney.
English translation of the transcript here
judge him by the Nuremburg standard then if found guilty lock him in a 3 X 4 x 5 dog cage.
mrogi @ 29:
no, rogi, its a lying sack of shit! This is no time to be mealymouthed. Speak up!!
I'm sure you'll have some cosmic rationale
But here you are with your faith
And your Peter Pan advice
You have no scars on your face
And you cannot handle PRESSURE
"My patience is at an end" LOL
what is America going to say when bush declares martial law and sets Blackwater on the American citizens? and you don't think he will do this, do you?
THINK AGAIN !
Don't you all get it yet? No one cares! By no one, of course, I mean the 29 percenters or whatever the figure is now. The White House could release a video of Bush saying that he knew terrorists were planning to attack on 9/11, and that he was going to use that as an excuse to invade Iraq, and the sheeple would still bleat "Saddam was a bad man and the world is better off without him." I asked one of my relatives years ago what George W. would have to do to override the fact that he claims to be a Christian, and to lose her support. Sadly, I have come to realize that the answer is that there is nothing that will cause his base to turn against him.
What I do not understand is why the Democratic Congressmen have apparently not realized this. It seems like they are still trying to appeal to some mythical "moderate" voters. There are no more moderates regarding this war, and have not been for some time. Seriously, who do you know who pays the slightest attention to current events who is not either completely against the war or will continue to support it no matter what (unless, of course, their kids were drafted or their taxes were raised to pay for it.)
This is lovely too:
Besides the fact that it's a complete lie (maybe he thinks he did comfort Cindy Sheehan?) it's even more disgusting because, as usual, the slimeball had no idea at all who he was actually going to send off to fight. Perhaps if he did, he might have realized that comforting would also be needed for the widowers and grandchildren of the dead? I swear the idiot thinks it's all a movie, with some imaginary eighteen year old boys dying noble, heroic, painless and bloodless deaths.
FINALLY!
After almost 7 years, I finally have read about a bush success story.
He observed that he was willing to play bad cop to British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s good cop.
And the decider has done a fine job at being a bad cop.
One day Bush will have to answer for his crimes. ;)
And I believe I am right: Bush is the worst president, ever. History doesn't have to happen to judge him, he's being judged now by the present, and it's a rather ugly picture. He is no Truman, and no Reagan, and not even close to Lincoln. He's more akin to Harding or Buchanan as bad presidents go, but rather lower than them even. A failure. Thanks for playing 'bad cop' with soldier's lives, W.
The fact that Bush is "at peace with himself" must be a comfort to the family members (American, British & Iraqi) who lost loved ones in Bush's pissing contest!
May you rot in hell, you fucking doofus!!
Oh and remember people he is there because of one thing: the Republican Party foisted him onto us. All of his decisions and their results are the fault, indirectly, of the GOP. Yes it is that simple. They should pay by losing elections for a time to come.
the media will memory hole this. "OMG, Jack Bauer DUI"
Criminal traitor war criminals like Bush, Cheney, and all the rest of the neocon cabal and talibangelicals should be tried, tarred and feathered, and summarily executed. Moderator please don't tell me not to advocate violence: I am advocating what is normally done to traitors and war criminals.
The bastard needs to be hung by his neck for what he has done and we need to make the next President of the US, accountable for making sure he is held accountable for all the misery he has brought to this country and Iraq and the whole world.
Bush reportedly said, “I am optimistic because I believe I am right. I am at peace with myself.”
Hey, thats exactly what I always say.
If your ever in front of a judge for DUI or criminal equivalent just try it. Tell the judge you did what you did and, “I am optimistic because I believe I am right. I am at peace with myself.”
It works for no down, no interest loans too................
StCyrlyMe @ 46:
Hanging the criminals who have caused so many deaths in their war profiteering effort would not appease the families of those left to wonder why. They do need to pay but there is not, in my view, anything that they have to offer because the lives of the criminals are simply not worth the death of even one person who has died as a result of their actions. I would prefer that they spend the rest of their lives undergoing alternative interrogation so that we could hopefully reach the depth of their wrongdoing. They would crack in an instant. These are people who were too afraid to serve their country when the had the chance.
yeah...
quite a
bragadiccio
heh...
I couldn't wait for the translation, here's the original to those who can read Spanish.
ACTA DE LA CONVERSACIÓN ENTRE GEORGE W. BUSH Y JOSÉ MARÍA AZNAR - CRAWFORD, TEJAS, 22 DE FEBRERO DE 2003
"Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam"
26/09/2007
Presidente Bush. Estamos a favor de conseguir una segunda resolución en el Consejo de Seguridad y querríamos hacerlo rápidamente. Querríamos anunciarla el lunes o el martes [24 o 25 de febrero de 2003].
Presidente Aznar. Mejor el martes, después de la reunión del Consejo de Asuntos Generales de la Unión Europea. Es importante mantener el momentum [impulso] conseguido por la resolución de la cumbre de la Unión Europea [en Bruselas, el lunes 17 de febrero]. Nosotros preferiríamos esperar hasta el martes.
PB. Podría ser el lunes por la tarde, teniendo en cuenta la diferencia horaria. En cualquier caso la próxima semana. Vemos la resolución redactada de manera que no contenga elementos obligatorios, que no mencione el uso de la fuerza, y que constate que Sadam Hussein ha sido incapaz de cumplir sus obligaciones. Ese tipo de resolución puede ser votada por mucha gente. Sería algo parecida a la que se obtuvo cuando lo de Kosovo [el 10 de junio de 1999].
PA. ¿Se presentaría ante el Consejo de Seguridad antes e independientemente de una declaración paralela?.
Condoleezza Rice. En realidad no habría declaración paralela. Estamos pensando en una resolución tan simple como sea posible sin muchos detalles de cumplimiento que pudieran servir para que Sadam Hussein los utilizara como etapas y consiguientemente incumplirlas. Estamos hablando con Blix [jefe de los inspectores de la ONU] y otros de su equipo para obtener ideas que pueden servir para introducir la resolución.
PB. Sadam Husein no cambiará y seguirá jugando. Ha llegado el momento de deshacerse de él. Es así. Yo, por mi parte, procuraré a partir de ahora utilizar una retórica lo más sutil posible, mientras buscamos la aprobación de la resolución. Si alguien veta [Rusia, China y Francia poseen junto a EE UU y Reino Unido derecho a veto en el Consejo de Seguridad en su calidad de miembros permanentes], nosotros iremos. Sadam Hussein no se está desarmando. Le tenemos que coger ahora mismo. Hemos mostrado un grado increíble de paciencia hasta ahora. Quedan dos semanas. En dos semanas estaremos militarmente listos. Creo que conseguiremos la segunda resolución. En el Consejo de Seguridad tenemos a los tres africanos [Camerún, Angola y Guinea], a los chilenos, a los mexicanos. Hablaré con todos ellos, también con Putin, naturalmente. Estaremos en Bagdad a finales de marzo. Existe un 15% de posibilidades de que en ese momento Sadam Hussein esté muerto o se haya ido. Pero esas posibilidades no existen antes de que hayamos mostrado nuestra resolución. Los egipcios están hablando con Sadam Hussein. Parece que ha indicado que estaría dispuesto a exiliarse si le dejaran llevarse 1.000 millones de dólares y toda la información que quisiera sobre armas de destrucción masiva. [Muammar El] Gaddafi le ha dicho a Berlusconi que Sadam Hussein quiere irse. Mubarak nos dice que en esas circunstancias existen muchas posibilidades de que sea asesinado. Nos gustaría actuar con el mandato de las Naciones Unidas. Si actuamos militarmente lo haremos con una gran precisión y focalizando mucho nuestros objetivos. Diezmaremos a las tropas leales y el ejército regular rápidamente sabrá de lo que se trata. Hemos hecho llegar un mensaje muy claro a los generales de Sadam Hussein: los trataremos como criminales de guerra. Sabemos que han acumulado una enorme cantidad de dinamita para hacer volar los puentes y otras infraestructuras y hacer saltar por los aires los pozos petrolíferos. Tenemos previsto ocupar esos pozos muy pronto. También los saudíes nos ayudarían a poner en el mercado el petróleo que fuese necesario. Estamos desarrollando un paquete de ayuda humanitaria muy fuerte. Podemos ganar sin destrucción. Estamos planteando ya el Irak post Sadam, y creo que hay buenas bases para un futuro mejor. Irak tiene una buena burocracia y una sociedad civil relativamente fuerte. Se podría organizar en una federación. Mientras tanto estamos haciendo todo lo posible para atender las necesidades políticas de nuestros amigos y aliados.
PA. Es muy importante contar con una resolución. No es lo mismo actuar con ella que sin ella. Sería muy conveniente contar en el Consejo de Seguridad con una mayoría que apoyara esa resolución. De hecho, es más importante contar con mayoría que que alguien emita un veto. Creemos que el contenido de la resolución debería entre otras cosas constatar que Sadam Hussein ha perdido su oportunidad.
PB. Sí, por supuesto. Sería mejor eso que hacer una referencia a "los medios necesarios" [se refiere a la resolución tipo de la ONU que autoriza a utilizar "todos los medios necesarios"].
PA. Sadam Husein no ha cooperado, no se ha desarmado, deberíamos hacer un resumen de sus incumplimientos y lanzar un mensaje más elaborado. Eso permitiría por ejemplo que México se moviera [en referencia a cambiar su posición contraria a la segunda resolución, que Aznar pudo conocer de labios del presidente Vicente Fox el viernes 21 de febrero en una escala realizada en Ciudad de México].
PB. La resolución estará hecha a la medida de lo que pueda ayudarte. Me da un poco lo mismo el contenido.
PA. Te haremos llegar unos textos.
PB. Nosotros no tenemos ningún texto. Solamente un criterio: que Sadam Hussein se desarme. No podemos permitir que Sadam Hussein alargue el tiempo hasta el verano. Al fin y al cabo ya ha tenido cuatro meses en esta última etapa y eso es tiempo más que suficiente para desarmarse.
PA. Nos ayudaría ese texto para ser capaces de patrocinarlo y ser sus coautores y conseguir que mucha gente lo patrocine.
PB. Perfecto.
PA. El próximo miércoles [16 de febrero] me veo con Chirac. La resolución ya habrá comenzado a circular.
PB. Me parece muy bien. Chirac conoce perfectamente la realidad. Sus servicios de inteligencia se lo han explicado. Los árabes le están transmitiendo a Chirac un mensaje muy claro: Sadam Hussein debe irse. El problema es que Chirac se cree Mister Arab y en realidad les está haciendo la vida imposible. Pero yo no quiero tener ninguna rivalidad con Chirac. Tenemos puntos de vista diferentes, pero yo quisiera que eso fuera todo. Dale los mejores recuerdos de mi parte. ¡De verdad! Cuanto menos rivalidad sienta él que existe entre nosotros será mejor para todos.
PA. ¿Cómo se combina la resolución y el informe de los inspectores?.
Condoleezza Rice. En realidad no habrá informe el 28 de febrero sino que los inspectores presentarán un informe escrito el 1 de marzo, y su comparecencia ante el Consejo de Seguridad no se producirá hasta el 6 o 7 de marzo de 2003. No esperamos gran cosa de ese informe. Como en los anteriores, pondrán una de cal y otra de arena. Tengo la impresión de que Blix será ahora más negativo que lo que antes fue sobre la voluntad de los iraquíes. Después de la comparecencia de los inspectores en el Consejo debemos prever el voto sobre la resolución una semana después. Los iraquíes, entre tanto, intentarán explicar que van cumpliendo sus obligaciones. Ni es cierto ni será suficiente, aunque anuncien la destrucción de algunos misiles.
PB. Esto es como la tortura china del agua. Tenemos que poner fin a ello.
PA. Estoy de acuerdo, pero sería bueno contar con el máximo número de gente posible. Ten un poco de paciencia.
PB. Mi paciencia está agotada. No pienso ir más allá de la mitad de marzo.
PA. No te pido que tengas una paciencia infinita. Simplemente que hagas lo posible para que todo cuadre.
PB. Países como México, Chile, Angola y Camerún deben saber que lo que está en juego es la seguridad de los EE UU y actuar con un sentido de amistad hacia nosotros. [El presidente Ricardo] Lagos debe saber que el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio con Chile está pendiente de confirmación en el Senado y que una actitud negativa en este tema podría poner en peligro esa ratificación. Angola está recibiendo fondos del Millenium Account y también podrían quedar comprometidos si no se muestran positivos. Y Putin debe saber que con su actitud está poniendo en peligro las relaciones de Rusia con los Estados Unidos.
PA. Tony querría llegar hasta el 14 de marzo.
PB. Yo prefiero el 10. Esto es como el juego de policía malo y policía bueno. A mí no me importa ser el policía malo y que Blair sea el bueno.
PA. ¿Es cierto que existe alguna posibilidad de que Sadam Hussein se exilie?
PB. Sí, existe esa posibilidad. Incluso de que sea asesinado.
PA. ¿Exilio con alguna garantía?
PB. Ninguna garantía. Es un ladrón, un terrorista, un criminal de guerra. Comparado con Sadam, Milosevic sería una Madre Teresa. Cuando entremos vamos a descubrir muchos más crímenes y le llevaremos al Tribunal Internacional de Justicia de La Haya. Sadam Hussein cree que ya se ha escapado. Cree que Francia y Alemania han detenido el proceso de sus responsabilidades. Cree también que las manifestaciones de la semana pasada [sábado 15 de febrero] le protegen. Y cree que yo estoy muy debilitado. Pero la gente de su entorno sabe que las cosas son de otra manera. Saben que su futuro está en el exilio o en un ataúd. Por eso es tan importante mantener la presión sobre él. Gaddafi nos dice indirectamente que eso es lo único que puede acabar con él. La única estrategia de Sadam Hussein es la de retrasar, retrasar y retrasar.
PA. En realidad el mayor éxito sería ganar la partida sin disparar un solo tiro y entrando en Bagdad.
PB. Para mí sería la solución perfecta. Yo no quiero la guerra. Sé lo que son las guerras. Sé la destrucción y la muerte que traen consigo. Yo soy el que tiene que consolar a las madres y a las viudas de los muertos. Por supuesto, para nosotros esa sería la mejor solución. Además, nos ahorraría 50.000 millones de dólares.
PA. Necesitamos que nos ayudéis con nuestra opinión pública.
PB. Haremos todo lo que podamos. El miércoles voy a hablar sobre la situación en el Oriente Medio, proponiendo un nuevo esquema de paz que conoces y sobre las armas de destrucción masiva, de los beneficios de una sociedad libre, y situaré la historia de Irak en un contexto más amplio. Quizá os sirva.
PA. Lo que estamos haciendo es un cambio muy profundo para España y para los españoles. Estamos cambiando la política que el país había seguido en los últimos 200 años.
PB. A mí me guía un sentido histórico de la responsabilidad igual que a ti. Cuando dentro de unos años la Historia nos juzgue no quiero que la gente se pregunte por qué Bush, o Aznar, o Blair no hicieron frente a sus responsabilidades. Al final, lo que la gente quiere es gozar de libertad. Hace poco, en Rumania me recordaban el ejemplo de Ceausescu: bastó con que una mujer le llamara mentiroso para que todo el edificio represivo se viniera abajo. Es el poder incontenible de la libertad. Estoy convencido de que conseguiré la resolución.
PA. Mejor que mejor.
PB. Yo tomé la decisión de ir al Consejo de Seguridad. A pesar de las divergencias en mi Administración, les dije a mi gente que teníamos que trabajar con nuestros amigos. Será estupendo contar con una segunda resolución.
PA. Lo único que me preocupa de ti es tu optimismo.
PB. Estoy optimista porque creo que estoy en lo cierto. Estoy en paz conmigo mismo. Nos ha correspondido hacer frente a una seria amenaza contra la paz. Me irrita muchísimo contemplar la insensibilidad de los europeos sobre los sufrimientos que Sadam Hussein inflige a los iraquíes. Quizá porque es moreno, lejano y musulmán, muchos europeos piensan que todo está bien con él. No olvidaré lo que me dijo una vez Solana: que por qué los americanos pensamos que los europeos son antisemitas e incapaces de hacer frente a sus responsabilidades. Esa actitud defensiva es terrible. Tengo que reconocer que con Kofi Annan tengo unas magníficas relaciones.
PA. Comparte tus preocupaciones éticas.
PB. Cuanto más me atacan los europeos tanto más fuerte soy en los Estados Unidos.
PA. Tendríamos que hacer compatible tu fortaleza con el aprecio de los europeos.
OMG what these guys were drinking!
"Aznar said he was worried that Bush was overly optimistic about what would happen."
• Sure, he was optimistic that a civil war and partition coudl be brought about in eight years of stolen elections.
Where he fell off the truck was in LOSING 2006 as a result of the outing of the vote-fraud with sufficient public watch to prevent the states from being ripped off again by crooked SecStates.
And now by focusing on impeachment, the peace movement has shot itself in the foot. Instead of working hard to force as many in Congress as possible to shut Bushco's war on Iran down, we find ourselves on the verge.
And the solution seen hereabouts? Third party pretenses.
We still have a shot at stopping the attack on Iran, or reducing its scope, if we are willing to do so by directing our pressure at those who support those policies, instead of scapegoating Pelosi, Conyers, Kerry and Reid as if they were the problem instead of the list of votes we can see today -- votes in which Pelosi, Conyers, and Kerry voted NAY all the way.
Thanks, Rhedez.
I hope people do realize that Rice and Boy Wonder were translated (from Asshole to Spanish, though I think Aznar actually spoke Asshole quite well).
The Onion: Bush Subconsciously Sizes Up Spain For Invasion
You can read the full english translation here
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/9/26/13028/3569
in Euroepan tribune...
Gekke @ 40:
00
Does the world court practice "rendition"?
Hope so!
Well, took the time to write a translation for those who can't read Spanish. CAVEAT EMPTOR - I'm not a professional translator and I'm not from Spain (I'm Puerto Rican, many say we don't actually speak Spanish). Also, keep in mind this is an amateur translation of notes taken in Spanish of a conversation most likely carried out in English.
============================================================
Reference Text: Minutes of the conversation between George W. Bush and Jose Maria Aznar - Crawford, Texas February 22 2003
"The time to get rid of Saddam Houssein has arrived"
26/09/2007
==========================================================================
President Bush: We are in favor of obtaining a second resolution at the Security Council
and would like to do it quickly. We would like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday (February 24 or 25, 2003).
President Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the European Union General Affairs Council. It is important to maintain the momentum (impulse) accomplished by the European Union summit resolution (in Brussels, Monday February 17). We would prefer to wait until Tuesday.
PB: It could be Monday afternoon, taking into account the time difference. In any case, next week. We see the resolution written in a way not including compulsory elements, not mentioning use of force, and affirming that Saddam Hussein has been incapable of fulfilling his obligations. This type of resolution can be approved by many people. It would be similar to the one obtained for the Kosovo affair (on June 10, 1999).
PA: Would it be presented before the Security Council before and independently of a parallel declaration?
Condoleezza Rice: There really would not be a parallel declaration. We are considering a resolution as simple as possible, with no detailed elements which could be used by Saddam Hussein as stages which he would subsequently fail to fulfill. We are talking to Blix (UN chief inspector) and others of his team to get ideas which could serve us to introduce the resolution.
PB: Saddam Hussein won't change and will continue playing . The time has come to get rid of him. That's it. I, for one, will attempt from now on to use as subtle a rhetoric as possible while seeking approval of the resolution. If anyone vetoes (Russia, China and France have, together with the USA and the United Kingdom, veto rights as permanent members of the Security Council), we will go. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. We have to catch him right now. We have shown incredible patience up until now. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be militarily ready. I believe we will get the second resolution. We have three Africans in the Security Council (Cameroon, Angola and Guinea), the Chileans, and the Mexicans. I will speak with all of them, also Putin, naturally. We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March. There is a 15% possibility that by then Saddam Hussein will be dead or will have left. But that possibility will not exist unless we show our resolve. The Egyptians are talking to Saddam Hussein. He appears to have signaled his willingness to go into exile if he is allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information he desires concerning weapons of mass destruction. (Muammar Al) Khadaffi has told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that under these circumstances there is a high likelihood he could be assassinated.
We would like to act under a United Nations mandate. If we act militarily, we will do so with great precision and focusing on our objectives. We will quickly decimate the loyalists and the regular military will quickly know what this is about. We have delivered a clear message to Saddam Hussein's generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stockpiled enormous quantities of dynamite to demolish bridges and other infrastructure and blow up the oil wells. We have planned for a quick takeover of these wells. Also, the Saudis will help us put whatever oil is necessary on the market. We are developing a strong humanitarian aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already proposing the post-Saddam Iraq, and I believe there are good grounds to suggest a better future. Iraq has a strong bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized into a federation. Meanwhile, we are doing everything in our power to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
PA: It is very important to be backed by a resolution. It is not the same acting with it as without it. It would be very convenient to count on a Security Council majority support for the resolution. In fact, it is more important to have majority support than whether somebody vetoes the resolution. We believe the content of the
resolution should state, among other things, that Saddam Hussein has lost his opportunity.
PB: Yes, of course. That be better than referring to "necessary means" (he refers to a UN-style resolution authorizing the use of "all necessary means").
PA: Saddam Hussein has not cooperated, has not disarmed, we should summarize his defaults and launch a more elaborate message. This would allow, for example, Mexico to move (in reference to changing its position against a second resolution, word of which Aznar heard from president Vicente Fox during a Friday February 21 stopover
in Mexico City).
PB: The resolution will be tailored to your needs. I don't care one way or the other about its content.
PA: We will have some text sent to you.
PB: We don't have any text. Only one criterion: that Saddam Hussein disarm. We can't permit Saddam Hussein to string us along until the summer. In the end, he has had four months in this last stage and that is more than enough time for disarmament.
PA: That text would enhance our ability to sponsor, co-author and obtain wide support for it.
PB: Perfect.
PA: Next Wednesday (February 16) I'm meeting Chirac. The resolution will have started to get around by then.
PB: That's fine with me. Chirac is well aware of reality. His intelligence services have explained this to him. The Arabs are sending Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac considers himself "Mister Arab", while in reality he's making life impossible for them. But I don't want any quarrel with Chirac. We have different points of view, but I wish that were all. Greet him on my behalf. Really! The less animosity he feels there is between us the better off we will all be.
PA: How do we combine the resolution and the inspectors report?
Condoleezza Rice: In reality there will not be a February 28 report, rather the inspectors will present a written report on March 1, and their appearance before the Security Council will not take place until March 6 or 7 of 2003. We don't expect much out of that report. As with the others, they will state on the one hand this but on the other hand that. I have the impression that Blix will now be more negative than before about the Iraqis' will. After the appearance of the inspectors before the Council we must prepare to vote on the resolution a week later. The Iraqis, meanwhile, will try to explain they are complying with their obligations. It is neither true
nor sufficient, even if they announce the destruction of some missiles.
PB: It is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.
PA: I agree, but it would be good to have as many people on our side as possible. Be a little patient.
PB: My patience is exhausted. I don't intend to wait beyond mid-March.
PA: I'm not asking you for infinite patience. Just that you do what's possible to make it all work.
PB: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon must know that what is at stake is the security of the U.S. and act in a friendly manner toward us.
{President Ricardo) Lagos must know that the Free Trade agreement with Chile is pending confirmation in the Senate and that a negative attitude could endanger its ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account which could be compromised if they don't behave positively. And Putin must know that his attitude is endangering relations between Russia and the United States.
PA: Tony would like to hold out until March 14.
PB: I prefer the 10th. This is like a good cop, bad cop routine. I don't mind being the bad cop to Tony's good cop.
PA: Is it true there is a chance Saddam Hussein will go into exile?
PB: Yes, the is a chance. Even that he will be assassinated.
PA: Exile with some guarantee?
PB: No guarantee. He is a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in we will discover many more crimes and we will take him to the International Tribunal in La Haye. Saddam Hussein believes he has escaped. He believes that France and Germany have abandoned their responsibilities. He also believes that last week's declarations (Saturday February 15) protect him. And believes I'm very weakened. But the people around him know otherwise. They know his future is in exile or in a casket. That is why it is so important to maintain pressure on him. Khadaffi tells us indirectly that is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam's only strategy is to delay, delay and delay.
PA: Actually the greatest victory would be to win the match without firing a single shot and entering Baghdad.
PB: For me that would be the perfect solution. I do not want war. I know what wars are. I know the destruction and death they bring. I am the one that has to console the mothers and widows of the dead. Of course, for us this would be the best solution. Also, it would save us 50 billion dollars.
PA: We need you to help us with our public relations.
PB: We'll speak all we can. On Wednesday I will speak about the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new scheme of peace which you're familiar with, and about weapons of mass destruction, about the benefits of a free society, and I will place the history of Iraq in a wider context. Maybe that will help you.
PA: What we are doing is a very profound change for Spain and the Spanish people. We are changing the politics our country had followed in the last 200 years.
PB: I am guided historical sense of responsibility equal to yours. When some years later history passes judgement on us I don't want people to ask why Bush, or Aznar, or Blair did not confront their responsibilities. In the end, what people want is to enjoy freedom. A short while ago, in Romania, I remembered Ceausescu's example: all it took was for a woman to call him a liar to bring down the whole edifice. It's the irrepressible power of freedom. I'm convinced I will get the resolution.
PA: Let's hope so.
PB: I made the decision to go to the Security Council. In spite of divergent opinions in my administration, I told my people we had to work with our friends. It will be wonderful to be obtain a second resolution.
PA: The only thing that worries me is your optimism.
PB: I'm optimistic because I believe I am right. I'm at peace with myself. It has fallen upon us to confront a serious menace to peace. It irritates me no end to contemplate the insensitivity of the Europeans to the suffering Saddam Hussein inflicts on the Iraqi people. Perhaps because he is dark (skinned), distant and Muslim, many Europeans believe he is all right. I will not forget what Solana once told me: that why do we Americans believe Europeans are antisemitic and incapable of facing their responsibilities? This defensive attitude is terrible. I must recognize I have a magnificent relationship with Kofi Annan.
PA: He shares your ethical concerns.
PB: The more the Europeans attack me, the stronger I become in the United States.
PA: We would have to make your strength compatible with European appreciation.
===================================================================================
NOTES:
- Translated Literally. Not sure if this is the official translation.
- Translated literally. I presume what is meant is "playing us" or "toying with us"
- Translated literally. I do not believe you put numbers on "possibilities", but give this sounds like it was pulled out of somebody's ass, perhaps "15% possibility" is appropriate. Also maybe "15% chance"
- This sentence is a bit vague, but I take it to mean they will see what's in store for them if they resist.
- Not clear what is meant by this sentence. Either the Saudis would help us get Iraqi oil to market, or, more likely, will increase their output to make up for any Iraqi shortfall.
- Literally, "It is very important to count on a resolution".
- I presume he means "his opportunity to comply with the resolution".
- Literally "they will put in one of lime and one of sand" - this is how you make cement. I believe this means they will balance positives and negatives coming to no dramatic condemnation of acquital. I used the the closest equivalent expression I know. Please note that this is a just a saying, not civil engineering, don't try to make actual cement this way.
- I'm not sure what she means by this. My guess is "will" is used as in "good will".
- The word "prever" means literally "forsee", which I can't square with the rest of the sentence. The dictionary lists also a secondary connotation as "prepare", which makes more sense in this case.
- Just a guess. Not familiar with this expression, literally "better than better".
- Literally, "many Europeans believe that everything is all right with him"
- Not sure I follow this, so beware the translation. It may be the Bush ramble but
perhaps I just don't get it.
- Not sure whether Aznar is asking Bush to share his ethical concerns with him or stating that Bush's "wonderful" (literally "Stupendous") relationship with Kofi Annan is due to them sharing the same ethical concerns. Opted for the last one.
- Translated literally. It would make more sense to read it as "We must make your strength compatible with European appreciation", but can't square that circle.
Well, there were numbered tags on the text correlated with numbered notes, but the comment formatting took then all out. Sorry
Well, took the time to write a translation for those who can't read Spanish. CAVEAT EMPTOR - I'm not a professional translator and I'm not from Spain (I'm Puerto Rican, many say we don't actually speak Spanish). Also, keep in mind this is an amateur translation of notes taken in Spanish of a conversation most likely carried out in English.
============================================================
Reference Text: Minutes of the conversation between George W. Bush and Jose Maria Aznar - Crawford, Texas February 22 2003
"The time to get rid of Saddam Hussein has arrived"
26/09/2007
==========================================================================
President Bush: We are in favor of obtaining a second resolution at the Security Council
and would like to do it quickly. We would like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday (February 24 or 25, 2003).
President Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the European Union General Affairs Council. [1] It is important to maintain the momentum (impulse) accomplished by the European Union summit resolution (in Brussels, Monday February 17). We would prefer to wait until Tuesday.
PB: It could be Monday afternoon, taking into account the time difference. In any case, next week. We see the resolution written in a way not including compulsory elements, not mentioning use of force, and affirming that Saddam Hussein has been incapable of fulfilling his obligations. This type of resolution can be approved by many people. It would be similar to the one obtained for the Kosovo affair (on June 10, 1999).
PA: Would it be presented before the Security Council before and independently of a parallel declaration?
Condoleezza Rice: There really would not be a parallel declaration. We are considering a resolution as simple as possible, with no detailed elements which could be used by Saddam Hussein as stages which he would subsequently fail to fulfill. We are talking to Blix (UN chief inspector) and others of his team to get ideas which could serve us to introduce the resolution.
PB: Saddam Hussein won't change and will continue playing [2]. The time has come to get rid of him. That's it. I, for one, will attempt from now on to use as subtle a rhetoric as possible while seeking approval of the resolution. If anyone vetoes (Russia, China and France have, together with the USA and the United Kingdom, veto rights as permanent members of the Security Council), we will go. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. We have to catch him right now. We have shown incredible patience up until now. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be militarily ready. I believe we will get the second resolution. We have three Africans in the Security Council (Cameroon, Angola and Guinea), the Chileans, and the Mexicans. I will speak with all of them, also Putin, naturally. We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March. There is a 15% possibility [3] that by then Saddam Hussein will be dead or will have left. But that possibility will not exist unless we show our resolve. The Egyptians are talking to Saddam Hussein. He appears to have signaled his willingness to go into exile if he is allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information he desires concerning weapons of mass destruction. (Muammar Al) Khadaffi has told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that under these circumstances there is a high likelihood he could be assassinated.
We would like to act under a United Nations mandate. If we act militarily, we will do so with great precision and focusing on our objectives. We will quickly decimate the loyalists and the regular military will quickly know what this is about. [4] We have delivered a clear message to Saddam Hussein's generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stockpiled enormous quantities of dynamite to demolish bridges and other infrastructure and blow up the oil wells. We have planned for a quick takeover of these wells. Also, the Saudis will help us put whatever oil is necessary on the market. [5] We are developing a strong humanitarian aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already proposing the post-Saddam Iraq, and I believe there are good grounds to suggest a better future. Iraq has a strong bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized into a federation. Meanwhile, we are doing everything in our power to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
PA: It is very important to be backed by a resolution. [6] It is not the same acting with it as without it. It would be very convenient to count on a Security Council majority support for the resolution. In fact, it is more important to have majority support than whether somebody vetoes the resolution. We believe the content of the
resolution should state, among other things, that Saddam Hussein has lost his opportunity. [7]
PB: Yes, of course. That be better than referring to "necessary means" (he refers to a UN-style resolution authorizing the use of "all necessary means").
PA: Saddam Hussein has not cooperated, has not disarmed, we should summarize his defaults and launch a more elaborate message. This would allow, for example, Mexico to move (in reference to changing its position against a second resolution, word of which Aznar heard from president Vicente Fox during a Friday February 21 stopover
in Mexico City).
PB: The resolution will be tailored to your needs. I don't care one way or the other about its content.
PA: We will have some text sent to you.
PB: We don't have any text. Only one criterion: that Saddam Hussein disarm. We can't permit Saddam Hussein to string us along until the summer. In the end, he has had four months in this last stage and that is more than enough time for disarmament.
PA: That text would enhance our ability to sponsor, co-author and obtain wide support for it.
PB: Perfect.
PA: Next Wednesday (February 16) I'm meeting Chirac. The resolution will have started to get around by then.
PB: That's fine with me. Chirac is well aware of reality. His intelligence services have explained this to him. The Arabs are sending Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac considers himself "Mister Arab", while in reality he's making life impossible for them. But I don't want any quarrel with Chirac. We have different points of view, but I wish that were all. Greet him on my behalf. Really! The less animosity he feels there is between us the better off we will all be.
PA: How do we combine the resolution and the inspectors report?
Condoleezza Rice: In reality there will not be a February 28 report, rather the inspectors will present a written report on March 1, and their appearance before the Security Council will not take place until March 6 or 7 of 2003. We don't expect much out of that report. As with the others, they will state on the one hand this but on the other hand that. [8] I have the impression that Blix will now be more negative than before about the Iraqis' will. [9] After the appearance of the inspectors before the Council we must prepare [10] to vote on the resolution a week later. The Iraqis, meanwhile, will try to explain they are complying with their obligations. It is neither true
nor sufficient, even if they announce the destruction of some missiles.
PB: It is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.
PA: I agree, but it would be good to have as many people on our side as possible. Be a little patient.
PB: My patience is exhausted. I don't intend to wait beyond mid-March.
PA: I'm not asking you for infinite patience. Just that you do what's possible to make it all work.
PB: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon must know that what is at stake is the security of the U.S. and act in a friendly manner toward us.
{President Ricardo) Lagos must know that the Free Trade agreement with Chile is pending confirmation in the Senate and that a negative attitude could endanger its ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account which could be compromised if they don't behave positively. And Putin must know that his attitude is endangering relations between Russia and the United States.
PA: Tony would like to hold out until March 14.
PB: I prefer the 10th. This is like a good cop, bad cop routine. I don't mind being the bad cop to Tony's good cop.
PA: Is it true there is a chance Saddam Hussein will go into exile?
PB: Yes, the is a chance. Even that he will be assassinated.
PA: Exile with some guarantee?
PB: No guarantee. He is a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in we will discover many more crimes and we will take him to the International Tribunal in La Haye. Saddam Hussein believes he has escaped. He believes that France and Germany have abandoned their responsibilities. He also believes that last week's declarations (Saturday February 15) protect him. And believes I'm very weakened. But the people around him know otherwise. They know his future is in exile or in a casket. That is why it is so important to maintain pressure on him. Khadaffi tells us indirectly that is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam's only strategy is to delay, delay and delay.
PA: Actually the greatest victory would be to win the match without firing a single shot and entering Baghdad.
PB: For me that would be the perfect solution. I do not want war. I know what wars are. I know the destruction and death they bring. I am the one that has to console the mothers and widows of the dead. Of course, for us this would be the best solution. Also, it would save us 50 billion dollars.
PA: We need you to help us with our public relations.
PB: We'll speak all we can. On Wednesday I will speak about the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new scheme of peace which you're familiar with, and about weapons of mass destruction, about the benefits of a free society, and I will place the history of Iraq in a wider context. Maybe that will help you.
PA: What we are doing is a very profound change for Spain and the Spanish people. We are changing the politics our country had followed in the last 200 years.
PB: I am guided historical sense of responsibility equal to yours. When some years later history passes judgement on us I don't want people to ask why Bush, or Aznar, or Blair did not confront their responsibilities. In the end, what people want is to enjoy freedom. A short while ago, in Romania, I remembered Ceausescu's example: all it took was for a woman to call him a liar to bring down the whole edifice. It's the irrepressible power of freedom. I'm convinced I will get the resolution.
PA: Let's hope so. [11]
PB: I made the decision to go to the Security Council. In spite of divergent opinions in my administration, I told my people we had to work with our friends. It will be wonderful to be obtain a second resolution.
PA: The only thing that worries me is your optimism.
PB: I'm optimistic because I believe I am right. I'm at peace with myself. It has fallen upon us to confront a serious menace to peace. It irritates me no end to contemplate the insensitivity of the Europeans to the suffering Saddam Hussein inflicts on the Iraqi people. Perhaps because he is dark (skinned), distant and Muslim, many Europeans believe he is all right.[12] I will not forget what Solana once told me: that why do we Americans believe Europeans are antisemitic and incapable of facing their responsibilities? This defensive attitude is terrible. I must recognize I have a magnificent relationship with Kofi Annan. [13]
PA: He shares your ethical concerns. [14]
PB: The more the Europeans attack me, the stronger I become in the United States.
PA: We would have to make your strength compatible with European appreciation. [15]
===================================================================================
NOTES:
[1] - Translated Literally. Not sure if this is the official translation.
[2] - Translated literally. I presume what is meant is "playing us" or "toying with us"
[3] - Translated literally. I do not believe you put numbers on "possibilities", but give this sounds like it was pulled out of somebody's ass, perhaps "15% possibility" is appropriate. Also maybe "15% chance"
[4] - This sentence is a bit vague, but I take it to mean they will see what's in store for them if they resist.
[5] - Not clear what is meant by this sentence. Either the Saudis would help us get Iraqi oil to market, or, more likely, will increase their output to make up for any Iraqi shortfall.
[6] - Literally, "It is very important to count on a resolution".
[7] - I presume he means "his opportunity to comply with the resolution".
[8] - Literally "they will put in one of lime and one of sand" - this is how you make cement. I believe this means they will balance positives and negatives coming to no dramatic condemnation of acquital. I used the the closest equivalent expression I know. Please note that this is a just a saying, not civil engineering, don't try to make actual cement this way.
[9] - I'm not sure what she means by this. My guess is "will" is used as in "good will".
[10] - The word "prever" means literally "forsee", which I can't square with the rest of the sentence. The dictionary lists also a secondary connotation as "prepare", which makes more sense in this case.
[11] - Just a guess. Not familiar with this expression, literally "better than better".
[12] - Literally, "many Europeans believe that everything is all right with him"
[13] - Not sure I follow this, so beware the translation. It may be the Bush ramble but
perhaps I just don't get it.
[14] - Not sure whether Aznar is asking Bush to share his ethical concerns with him or stating that Bush's "wonderful" (literally "Stupendous") relationship with Kofi Annan is due to them sharing the same ethical concerns. Opted for the last one.
[15] - Translated literally. It would make more sense to read it as "We must make your strength compatible with European appreciation", but can't square that circle.
it is now clear that just getting out of Iraq will not solve the problem the USA has in the world unless we also turn these crooks over to the Hague for trial. the sooner the better.
Bush is "... at peace with himself." and at war with the rest of the world.
After his presidency (and this international nightmare...) is over, he will be at war with HISTORY too.
Thanks for the translation Ruben Remus. It agrees more or less with my reading of what they are saying. It will never be clear exactly what they were saying because we are translating back into English the Spanish notes of a conversation that was either using interpreters or was held in English, and some of the participants aren't known for their clarity of expression.
It really doesn't look as if Bush, Rice and Aznar were in any way looking for a peacful solution. They don't discuss what happens if they don't get a UN resolution and the way it is referred to implies that it is something that will be "nice to have" rather than a requirement under international law. They make a string of assumptions: Iraq is known to have WMD, Blix will make a more negative report, we'll get a second resolution, the invasion will be easy, reconstruction of infrastructure and society will be easy. They don't address these assumptions in any way. And as each one turned out to be untrue, they just kept on trucking.
Criminal psychopaths are always at peace with themselves, being that they have no conscience and are utterly amoral.
If my memory serves well I think most of this transcription has been already included in the book "Hubris" by Michael Isikoff and Daniel Corn, can somebody confirm?
Thanks.
Keep in mind that Jose Aznar probably doesn't know that Bush cooked the books on the WMD. Certainly Bush and Rice aren't about to let him in on their little deception in this meeting since they want to suck him in to their plot.
Well, it doesn't matter if Aznar knew or not (actually I think he was informed of the benefits of being an ally, either that or he was threatened), he stood by Bush and was handsomely rewarded with a teaching position at Georgetown U.
Ruben @58:
Useful, thanks. One minor point: Aznar was a prime minister, not a president (Spain has a monarchy!).
Augusto @ 65:
That wasn't my point. My point was that they were discussing WMD as though they actually existed, but that was show for Aznar who didn't know the fix was in. I wasn't excusing Aznar.
I always thought that when someone said that they were at peace with themself was when they were on their deathbed.
Q. What’s the difference between George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
A. One is a super-scary totalitarian religious fundamentalist nutjob and the other…doesn't speak english very well
Bush was determined to start a war despite protestations to the contrary? Whouda thunk?
That damned fascist Assnass is an asspainish nationalist who only dreams of crushing the Indians: meaning the Catalonian and the Basque peoples. No asspainish or thief-castilian is ever credible; they are all sons of Franco, which is much worse than being a son of anything else on earth.
Sorry Carmikl, I was not implying you were excusing Aznar, I just tried to add something else to your post.
Augusto @ 72:
I was just afraid that I hadn't made my point well. I wasn't criticizing your point.
Bush admitted to war crimes to a Spanish leader. That is admissible evidence. Congress?
of course he feels good about it........he's insane.
From the letter's translation:
Why would Saddam Hussein want to take information about weapons of mass destruction with him. What use would that information be to him in exile? Either Bush was throwing Jose Aznar a red herring, or the Egyptians wanted that information for their own use.
Full Translation of El Pais Article
El Pais, Spain
Bush Told Aznar that U.S. Would Be in Baghdad By March - with or without Second U.N. Resolution …
"On the 16th of March 2003, even as Bush maintained his public demands for Saddam to 'disarm or it's war,' Bush, Blair and Aznar decided to replace the U.N. Security Council and usurp its functions to declare war on their own accord."
...
http://www.watchingamerica.com/elpais000012.shtml
[...] Spanish Downing Street Memo HT Agitprop [...]
Comments are closed on this entry