The NY Times has in fact unwittingly proven that Hussein had links with Al Qaeda. After all if it did not how could it promise to hand over the WTC bomber?

So unfortunately your contest is based on a false premise as the NY Times Hussein has had a decade long relationship with Al Qaeda and we know the times wouldn't lie :)

You got 'em, stephen.
Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda...is that all they have left?

The person who wrote the news story doesn't understand Arab political culture, which relies on deception, feints, delays, and misdirection.

Why Arabs Lose Wars
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html

"These problems notwithstanding, culture does need to be taken into account. Indeed, awareness of prior mistakes should make it possible to assess the role of cultural factors in warfare. John Keegan, the eminent historian of warfare, argues that culture is a prime determinant of the nature of warfare. In contrast to the usual manner of European warfare, which he terms "face to face," Keegan depicts the early Arab armies in the Islamic era as masters of evasion, delay, and indirection. Examining Arab warfare in this century leads to the conclusion that the Arabs remain more successful in insurgent, or political, warfare — what T. E. Lawrence termed "winning wars without battles." Even the much-lauded Egyptian crossing of the Suez in 1973 at its core entailed a masterful deception plan. It may well be that these seemingly permanent attributes result from a culture that engenders subtlety, indirection, and dissimulation in personal relationships."

Les, I appreciate the comments, but to avoid confusion, let's not use my blog title in your email address.

Thanks.

Kinda blows the whole "war for oil" argument huh? Of course, I suppose it supports the whole "Bush is a bloodthirsty warmonger" argument. Then again, Bush's opponents have an argument for everything Bush does so the next time he kisses a baby, look for the "Bush is a child molestor" argument.

We still did the right thing. I have doubts about the free-elections promise as well. If Saddam was so ready to give up power, he would have just abdicated and went into exile in a nice quiet French villa instead of getting chased into hiding by laser guided bombs.

Why wouldn't the Iraqis try to stall?

Remember when they agreed to the much-balley-hooed U-2 overflights? The nxt day there were "technical difficulties and complications relating to air traffic control."

Yes, there are cultural differences. And one feature of Western (or at least American) democracies is that when they get roused, when they have had enough, then they are different creatures from their earlier, accommodating appearances.

The real question, which I asked on my weblog, is if the offer were genuine, why not announce it to the UN?

After twelve years of stalling and deception we're suddenly supposed to call off everything because they promise Peace in Our Time?

We "should have made an effort to learn more"? Yeah, we would have leared that Saddam is a murderous lying bastard. But we already knew that, didn't we?