To: American Spirit who wrote (13969 ) 4/11/2004 12:51:51 PM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568 CLinton remembers hearing about it and said he tried to get the Saudis to take OBL and indict him because we had no clear evidence against him at that point. So was Berger lying or out of the loop? Well, brushing up against truth in this post. Note, where Clinton said "we had no clear evidence against him at that point", he was referring to the possibility of bringing him to America and admitting he could have but chose not to because of his evidence concern (otherwise he'd have no reason to talk about "clear evidence"). A consequence of treating terror as a legal problem.back-channeled offer reportedly made by Saddam to surrender No need for a back channel offer - Bush publicly offered Saddam a chance to choose exile. Bush would have had a great victory if he'd been able to get rid of Saddam without war. smh.com.au Bush backs Saddam exile plans By Stewart Powell in Washington February 1 2003 For the first time President George Bush has publicly endorsed efforts by Arab leaders to negotiate exile for President Saddam Hussein, to avoid a United States-led attack on Iraq. Mr Bush expressed his support at the White House on Thursday shortly before a private meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal. The prince is the architect of moves by a coalition of Arab nations to offer Saddam asylum and exemption from war crimes charges. Mr Bush said he hoped international pressure would convince Saddam to relinquish power. "Should he choose to leave the country, along with a lot of the other henchmen ... we would welcome that, of course." But Mr Bush said his aim remained to disarm Iraq, regardless of who was the leader. The White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, declined to estimate how many Iraqi officials or members of Saddam's family would have to step aside to satisfy the US demand for a complete regime change in Iraq.