Bush told Aznar a month before Iraq invasion that war was inevitable

Via Libbyat Cernig’s Newshoggers and JMM. Ernesto Elkaizer at Spain’s El Pais at last blows the whistle. The transcript goes something like this:

President Bush. We want to obtain a second Security Counsel resolution and we want to do so quickly. We want to announce it on Monday or Tuesday [24/25 Feb, 2003]

President Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the meeting of the General Affairs Council of the European Union. It’s important to maintain the momentum sought by the resolution of the top of the European Union [in Brussels, Tuesday, 2/17/03]. We would rather wait until Tuesday.

Bush: It could be Tuesday afternoon, keeping in mind the time difference. In any case, next week. We see the resolution edited in a manner that it it not contain obligatory elements, that it doesn’t mention the use of force, and that avers that Saddam Hussein has been incapable offulfilling his obligations. This kind of resolution can be supported by many people. It would be something like the one that was obtained with regard to Kosovo [6/10/1999].

Aznar: Would you present it before the Security Council beforehand and independently or as a parallel declaration?

Condoleezza Rice: There wouldn’t actually be a parallel declaration. We are thinking of a resolution as simple as possible without many details of how it would be carried out, which could serve so that Saddam Hussein would stage it out and consequently not fulfill the provisions. We are talking with Hans Blix [head of the UN inspectors] and others on his team to get ideas on how to introduce the resolution.

Bush: Saddam Hussein won’t change and will continue playing around. It’s the moment to destroy him. Me, for my part, I will upon parting adopt the most subtle rhetoric possible, while meanwhile we obtain approval of the resolution. If someone vetoes it [as permanent members, Russia, China, and France have together with the US and UK the right to a veto in the Security Council], we will go. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. We have to get him right now. We have displayed incredible patience until now. Two weeks remain. In two weeks, we will be ready militarily. I believe we will obtain the second resolution. In the Security Council, we have three Africans [Cameroon, Angola, and Guinea], the Chileans, and the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them and Putin, of course. We’ll be in Baghdad by the end of March. There is a 15% chance that at that moment, Saddam Hussein is dead or has departed. But these possibilities only exist if we have previously demonstrated our resolve. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It appears that he has indicated a willingness to exile himself if he is permitted to take 1 billion dollars and all the information he wants regarding weapons of mass destruction. [Moammar El] Khadafy has told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances, there are many opportunities that he may be assassinated.

We’d like to act with a mandate from the UN. If we act militarily, we will do so with great precision and focusing greatly on our objectives. We will decimate the loyal troops and the regular army will understand what’s coming. We have arranged for a very clear message to reach Saddam Hussein’s generals: we’ll treat them as war criminals. We know that they have accumulated a huge amount of dynamite to blow the bridges and other infrastructure and to blow the oil wells. We have planned to occupy those well very quickly. Also, the Saudis may help us to put whatever oil is needed on the market. We are developing a strong package of humanitarian aid. We can win without destruction. We are now planning [there appears to be a typo in the transcript] post-Saddam Iraq and I think there are good foundations for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a fairly strong civil society. A federation could be organized. Meanwhile, we are doing everything possible to deal with the political necessities of our friends and allies.

Aznar. It’s important to rely on a resolution. It’s not the same to act without one. It would be advantageous to rely on the Security Council with a majority that supports this resolution. Indeed, it’s more important to rely on a majority than that anyone vetoes. We believe that the content of the resolution should among other things state that Saddam Hussein has missed his chance.

Bush. Yes, of course. That would be better than a reference to “the necessary means” [this refers to a style of UN resolution that authorizes the use of “all necessary means.”]

Aznar. Saddam Hussein has not cooperated, has not disarmed, we should make a list of his failures to comply and send a more detailed message. This would permit for example that Mexico would act [referring to changing his position against a second resolution, that Aznar may have heard from the lips of Vicente Fox on Friday 2/22 on an accommodation ladder(?? i would guess this means, “on the QT”) in Mexico City]

Bush. The resolution will be gauged according to however it can help you. I’ll add a bit to the content.

Aznar. We’ll arrange to have some drafts sent to you.

Bush. We don’t have any text, just a criterion: that Saddam Hussein disarm. We can’t permit Saddam Hussein to drag things out till summer. At the end of the day, he’s already had four months in this final stage and now is that’s than adequate time to disarm.

Aznar. That phrasing would help us to be able to endorse it and be your coauthors and get many people to endorse it.

Bush. Perfect.

Aznar. Next Wednesday [16 Feb], I’ll be seeing Chirac. The resolution will then have begun to circulate.

Bush. Very good. Chirac knows the reality perfectly. His intelligence services have explained it to him The Arabs are sending Chirac a strong message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac imagines himself to be Mister Arab while in reality he’s making life impossible for them. But I have no rivalry with Chirac. We have different points of view, but I wished that was everything. Give him best regards on my part. Really! The less rivalry he feels that exists between is, the better for all.

Aznar. How to mesh the resolution with the inspectors’s report?

Condoleezza Rice. Actually, there won’t be a report on 28 February, but rather the inspectors will submit a written report on 1 March and their appearance before the Security Counsel won’t be until the 6th or 7th of March of 2003. We don’t expect any big deal from this report. Like the previous ones, it will be one part lime and one part sand. I have the impression that Blix will be more negative than beforehand regarding the willingness of the Iraqis. After the appearance of the inspectors in the Council, we ought to anticipate a vote on the resolution one week after. The Iraqis, meanwhile, will attempt to explain that they will comply with their obligations. It isn’t true nor will it be adequate, even though they announce the destruction of some missiles.

Bush. This is like Chinese water torture. We have to put an end to it.

Aznar. I agree, but it would be good to bring along the maximum number of people. Be patient.

Bush. My patience is exhausted. I don’t think of going beyond the middle of March.

Aznar. I don’t ask that you have infinite patience. Only that you do everything possible so that it all squares up.

Bush. Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola, and Cameroon should understand that the security of the US is at risk and act with in a spirit of friendship toward us.

[President Ricardo] Lagos should understand that the Free Trade agreement with Chile is awaiting confirmation in the Senate and that a negative attitude in this regard could endanger ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millenium Account and they could be in peril if they don’t show themselves to be positive. And Putin should understand that with his attitude, he is putting at risk the relations of Russia and the US.

Aznar. Tony wanted to defer until [lit. to arrive at] the 14th of March.

Bush. I prefer the 10th. This is like a good cop/bad cop game. I’m ok with being the bad cop so that Tony can be the good one.

Aznar. Is it true that there’s some possibility that Saddam Hussein would go into exile?

Bush. Yes, there’s that possibility. And also, that he’ll be assassinated.

Aznar. Exile with some promises?

Bush. No promises. He’s a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in, we’ll find many more crimes and we’ll take him to the International Tribunal at the Hague. Saddam Hussein thinks he has escaped. He thinks that France and Germany have stalled the process of his responsibilities. He also believes that the demonstrations of last week [Saturday, 15 Feb] protect him. And he believes that I am gravely weakened. But the people of his entourage (?) know differently. They know his future is in exile or in a coffin. For this reason, it’s so important to keep the pressure on him. Khadafy tells us indirectly that that’s the only way to be done with him. The only strategy of Saddam Hussein is delay, delay, delay.

Aznar. In reality, the greatest triumph would be to win the game without firing a single shot and entering Baghdad.

Bush. That would be the ideal solution for me. I don’t want war. I know what wars are. I know the destruction and death they bring. I’m the one who has to comfort the mothers and widows of the dead. Of course that would be the best solution for us. Plus, we’d save $50B dollars.

Aznar. We need that you help is with out public opinion.

Bush. We’ll do everything we can. On Wednesday, I will be talking about the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new peace initiative about which you know and regarding weapons of mass destruction, of the benefits of a free society, and I’ll place the history of Iraq in a broader context. Perhaps that will help you.

Aznar. What we’re doing is a profound change for Spain and the Spanish people.We are changing the political framework which the country has followed for the last 200 years.

Bush. I am guided by a sense of historical responsibility the same as you. When within a few years, History judges us, I don’t want that people will ask, Why didn’t Bush or Aznar or Blair face their responsibilities. In the end, what people want to do is enjoy freedom. Recently, in Rumania, they told me the example of Ceaucescu: that a woman called him a liar was enough to bring down the entire repressive apparatus. That’s the unstoppable power of freedom. I am convinced I will obtain the resolution.

Aznar. Great! [literally: Better than better.]

Bush. I took the decision to the Security Council. Despite the divisions in my Administration, I told my people that we have to work with our friends. It will be fabulous to be able to rely on a second resolution.

Aznar. The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.

Bush. I am optimistic because I believe I am right. I am at peace with myself. You wrote to us earlier about facing a serious threat to the peace. European indifference to the suffering that Saddam Hussein inflicts on his people burns me up. Maybe because they’re brown, foreigners, and Islamic, many Europeans think that everything is ok with him. I won’t forget what Solana told me once: why Americans think that Europeans are Anti-Semites and incapable of facing their responsibilities. That defensive attitude is terrible. I need to remember that I have great relations with Kofi Annan.

Aznar. Set aside your ethical preoccupations.

Bush. The more the Europeans attack me, the stronger I am in the US.

Aznar. We would have to make your strength compatible with European tastes.

So, now you know: he’s the same self-centered, stubborn, delusional jerk in private that he is in public, only he apparently speaks more intelligibly. It’s also clear that he, not Cheney, is driving the train.