That Iraq would one day be able to deliver a nuclear device? Yes. Be it in a year or 10 years, to depend on an avowed enemy of the USA to honestly divulge his weapon capabilities, was becoming quite dangerous.
Saddam wasn't letting weapon inspectors do the job. He was building onto those sites. He lied, delayed, bribed to keep the UN from peeking into his WMD programs. Be thankful of the 1991 invasion, today Saddam would have the whole Mideast under nuclear blackmail. Who is to say if the 2003 never took place that Saddam would have the area under the same today or ten years from now. Action was needed, and it sure did not come from the France, Germany or Russia.
Frankly, if we'd let him bust the UN sanctions long enough he could have bought WMD from Libya and from North Korea. He was clearly going to be back in the market for WMD as soon as he could be. People are foolish if they believe he'd given up hopes of being armed with NBC weapons. But there are plenty of fools out there including the Russians who basically are building Iran a nuke and the EU that is basically enabling the Iranians to become a nuclear power while the EU in its insufferable arrogance runs interference. They'll all rue the day.
That Iraq would one day be able to deliver a nuclear device? Yes.
Let me gently disagree here. While the threat of an Iraqui-built nuclear device certainly existed, it seems to me the clear and present danger making invasion urgent was the probability that Saddam would purchase ready-made bomb(s) from Paki, NK, China, Russia, wherever, and deliver them into the hands of Al Quaeda for immediate attacks on the U.S. It astonishes me that more has not been made of this scenario, especially since Saddam was flush with cash diverted from the Oil for Fools program and he certainly hated the U.S. enough to try to hurt us any way possible. Iraq's longer-range nuclear capabilities were part of the decision to invade as well, as you say.