Not one Arab leader could believe that the US would oust Saddam in three weeks. Now they have a democracy in their midst that is making their citizens wanting the same.

What I don't understand about this story is how the Arab League was able to veto the deal. If Saddam, the US, the UK, and the UAE all agreed to the deal, why did the Arab League's opinion matter in the slightest?

I certainly understand why they would oppose it. But they also opposed the invasion and their opposition didn't mean a damned thing. How, exactly, did they prevent that deal from taking place?

My suspicion is that the report is wrong, and that Saddam hadn't actually agreed to it.

As I recall, the French had assured Saddam that they would veto any plan for war and this led to his refusal to depart peacefully.

Saddam always styled himself as the Pan-Arab hero for opposing us. That image was strengthened in the first gulf war where he kicked his ass so hard our toes hurt, so we decided not to finish the job. For, uh, some good reason that probably made sense to peaceful minded folk at the time...

That he survived that engagement to defy us, no matter how lamely, was the source of a lot of pride and fueled the belief that we could be safely provoked because we wouldn't or couldn't follow through on the response. That's one of the reasons it was important for us to finally put this bastard to bed, and the previously held belief that the Americans only rattle their sabres is one of the unfortunate reasons Saddam's neighbors didn't take him in.

Then again, the thought of him sipping coffee in exile instead of facing a noose rankles. Probably worth it if it could have avoided combat, but I feel better knowing he's both deposed AND facing justice.

It's da yooz fault.
No ..... scooter did it, I cannot tell a lie.
Send Wilson to investurbate

we could be safely provoked because we wouldn't or couldn't follow through on the response

Yup. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

The best guaranty of peace is obviously the will and the means to crush your rivals. It takes a special kind of stupid to require that self-evident lessons be be taught and retaught. Our will has been in question for decades thanks to our internal rivals. If we are bleeding for any mistake at all, it is for having been too reluctant to do what we needed to make examples of our enemies.

We had better not make that mistake this time.

Good grief. Is it just me or did that sound a little too much like Spurwing?

It ws no thing like him, you told the truth like and upstanding Repulican an used latin words to! Go troops!

I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. It felt really good though.

Hey, has anybody been reading the Mesopotamian lately?

"This is not resistance to occupation (an occupation that does not exist), as some like to call it, nor is it an “insurgency” with any clear objective except some vague and false slogans; it is essentially racist and sectarian hate crimes. That’s what it is without doubt."
My emphasis.
I like the guy....he is getting to be more Western sounding every day...

O.K. The story was from al Reuters, that makes it unquestionably true up front. The last paragraph was the obligatory death count and morass spew. Can't discount how heavy the toll, especially to the peace-lovin' "insurgents".

Even if it did happen as reported in this story, who cares? As exemplified by the rejection by all Arab states of millions of Palestinians when they had the chance to take them from Israeli-occupied land, they show once again just how compassionate their religion is when the chips are down.

They've had their butts whupped often enough, they don't cotton to publicly and openly helping anyone but #1, and that's just fine. In spite of the America-haters here at home celebrating 2000 deaths, we'll still be standing when it's all over.

Perhaps the UAE (being a small country) would only accept the plan if other Arabs accepted it. Otherwise they could have faced problems with their own population, neighbors, etc.

More likely is that the deal was never fully done.

Arab leaders are queer?

Aren't you the one who is always saying, "Thanks to Allah"?

(And if you want to be grammatically incorrect, it's, "Thanks be to Allah.")

why are we just finding out about this? What is the purpose of the story coming out now? And where are the journalists that can uncover the smallest fib in a stupid "outing" of a CIA agent (but not really) and NOT get this story??????

More on this has come out. The deal was that Saddam would go into exile in the UAE, and the Arab League and the UN would supervise elections in Iraq 6 months later.

So the reason the Arab League was able to kill this deal was that it refused to help with that latter part of it.

And thank goodness, too. The result would have been a catastrophe for us by comparison to what actually did occur. I'm rather amazed that the Bush administration was even willing to consider this silly offer.

So, just like you right wingers hate the MSM until they write something you like, at which point you quote them like they're the word of God, now we have Al Arabiya. I suppose you considered them credible when the US banned them from Iraq after for "incitement to murder" after they broadcast messages from Saddam while he was still in hiding? I have no idea if this story is true, I just think it's kind of funny how you're all leaping to believe it because you like what it says.

Oh, by the way, I just heard al-Jazeera report that Libby is innocent. Quick, start posting!

Dumbass. When a story runs against the bias previously exhibited, this time by al-Reuters, it is going to be credible. It has nothing to do with wanting to believe it. Frankly, if there's anything I'm supposed to like about this story, I can't figure out what it is. Now what al-Reuters doesn't like about it, that one's easy.

Chris,

I think questioning why this story comes out now is hardly quoting them like they are the world of God.

We don't trust them too much. Isn't that obvious?