Saddam's $2m offer to WMD inspector

**Confed999** · 12 Mar 05,, 15:35

Saddam's $2m offer to WMD inspector
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 12/03/2005)

Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction.

Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, said that the offer came from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister and deputy.

Mr Ekeus told Reuters news agency that he had passed the information to the Volcker Commission. "I told the Volcker people that Tariq [Aziz] said a couple of million was there if we report right. My answer was, 'That is not the way we do business in Sweden.' "

A clean report from Mr Ekeus's inspectors would have been vital in lifting sanctions against Saddam's regime. But the inspectors never established what had happened to the regime's illicit weapons and never gave Iraq a clean bill of health.

The news that Iraq attempted to bribe a top UN official is a key piece of evidence for investigators into the scandal surrounding the oil-for-food programme. It proves that Iraq was offering huge sums of cash to influential foreigners in return for political favours.

MORE...

**Karthik** · 12 Mar 05,, 16:51

I'm not that surprised, really. What a worthless pile of rat droppings Saddam was.

**Confed999** · 12 Mar 05,, 18:35

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'm not that surprised, really. What a worthless pile of rat droppings Saddam was.

Mr Ekeus is pretty cool though.

**Karthik** · 13 Mar 05,, 03:31

But Confed, I've always thought that the weapons inspectors are under a lot of pressure from both sides.

We all know of Saddam's grand plans of having WMDs, and the cunning tactics that he used during 1997-1998. But as of the recent invasion of Iraq, Hans Blix made no secret of the fact that he was literally warned by Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice. They apparently minced no words in telling him to submit a report which was showed that Iraq had WMDs, because it was the administration's absolute belief that Saddam had huge stockpiles of WMDs.

You cannot deny the fact that Saddam was a total rogue. Christ knows how many inspectors he's bribed. But it is also true that all parties to the conflict exert pressure on the inspectors.

**Confed999** · 13 Mar 05,, 03:44

Originally Posted by Karthik

You cannot deny the fact that Saddam was a total rogue. Christ knows how many inspectors he's bribed. But it is also true that all parties to the conflict exert pressure on the inspectors.

Yeah, and that's why I think Mr Ekeus is pretty cool.

**jasonglh** · 13 Mar 05,, 03:52

I wonder when it was the offer was made I didnt find it in the article anywhere. I suppose it would have been before 1997?

**Veni Vidi Vici** · 13 Mar 05,, 04:05

This really wasnt surprising....

Well now he's sitting in a cell waiting to be hung, which is what he deserves.

**Ray** · 13 Mar 05,, 16:47

Corruption is worldwide.

He spilled the beans only after Sevan was nabbed? The report is a bit woolly.

Mr Ekeus's belated statement is of no use to man or beast.

Mr Ekeus should have complained when the offer had been made, if indeed it had been made. The facts would have been red hot and it could have been used to pin the Iraqis down.

What is the use of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted?

**Confed999** · 13 Mar 05,, 18:14

Originally Posted by Ray

Mr Ekeus's belated statement is of no use to man or beast.

Good point. I didn't click on that before, the Volcker Commission was in 2003 or 2004.

**Ray** · 13 Mar 05,, 19:41

2004, if I am not mistaken.

**Confed999** · 13 Mar 05,, 20:34

Originally Posted by Ray

2004, if I am not mistaken.

Yes Sir, April of 2004.

**~~jimmy22~~** · 08 Apr 05,, 13:52

War on Iraq was because Iraq was supposedly having WMDs. Many Army men and innocents died. British intelligence reports have already been proved wrong. And now Mr. Bush says our reports on iraq were not right. So is this war justified.

**~~dalem~~** · 08 Apr 05,, 14:23

Originally Posted by jimmy22

War on Iraq was because Iraq was supposedly having WMDs. Many Army men and innocents died. British intelligence reports have already been proved wrong. And now Mr. Bush says our reports on iraq were not right. So is this war justified.

Yes. War on Iraq was so that Iraq would not get WMDs and because Iraq refused to prove that Iraq had already destroyed extant WMDs. So it was perfectly justified.

-dale

**Confed999** · 09 Apr 05,, 18:02

Originally Posted by jimmy22

So is this war justified.

It was up to Saddam to follow the terms of the cease-fire, he didn't. Either way Saddam was a tyrant, and removing a tyrant from power is allways justified.

**barrowaj** · 09 Apr 05,, 18:24

Originally Posted by Confed999

It was up to Saddam to follow the terms of the cease-fire, he didn't. Either way Saddam was a tyrant, and removing a tyrant from power is allways justified.

So how about Pakistan? Instead of removing a dictator we are selling him weapons...

How about Monaco, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, China, etc.

The line about ensuring freedom for Iraqis is just Bush administration revisionism in order to save face. All Americans like to kill the bad guys, and as long as the government tells us who they are, we don't need to think about what we are doing.

The real reason we invaded Iraq was because Iraq was ideally an element of the Bush administration's war on terror. However, we have found that this was only political conjecture, and terrorism in Iraq has now formed after the invasion.