Christopher Hitchens on those last minute offerings of Saddam is uncharacteristically weak.

The general thrust is, "Aha, this proves we were right all along and goes to show that it was all for the best in the best of all possible worlds that we went to war."

He concludes by telling us there need be no silly nostalgia for a "peace" offer that confirmed all our worst suspicions about Saddam and tells us:

...as for the date of elections, that should be for the Iraqi people and not their murderers and torturers to determine.

Nor yet Bush or Bremer, presumably?

It seems to me that for the supporters of the moral war, this whole thing is a bit of a problem. Their touchingly naive faith that this was all done for the good of the Iraqi people would take quite a knock if it turned out that gunboat diplomacy may well have worked. If this remarkable set of offers was genuine, and it's a big if, I'll grant you, then what else might have been put on the table while Saddam was looking
down the barrels of the tanks as they prepared to roll? The release of political prisoners? Some form of UN investigation/enforcement of human rights?

Fanciful? Yes, about as fanciful as the idea of Saddam saying come in and look for WMDs, actually.

If the war had been about liberation, this might have been pursued. It would probably have come to nothing, but it was worth a punt. One of the hallmarks of a just war is, surely - to mix metaphors a bit - that all possible avenues of peace are explored.