In 1998, Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors which was a violation of the cease fire agreement. From that point until 9/11, Saddam claims that he had eliminated all of what he had last acknowledged in 1993, despite not eliminating any of it during the first seven years of the cease fire.
Should we have taken him at his word? Or should we have verified? Bush chose to verify. He convinced Saddam to allow UN inspectors back in to see if everything was as before. The final report coming from these inspectors (Scott Ritter included) was that they could not account for everything, and that Saddam was not allowing them the access they had been promised.
Keep in mind that 9/11 was a game changer. The bottom line with Iraq is that they were in violation of the cease fire agreement and had been so for quite some time. This first and foremost was the reason for invading, as the Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq clearly detail. Furthermore, Saddam was also a sponsor or terrorism which was our primary target.
True, Iraq did amend the report but as I recall they never exceeded the amounts that we and the Europeans sold/gave them in the 80’s. Sloppiness? I don’t know what the reason was. Saddam always struck me as a guy that would tell you anything if(he thought it would) it got you to do what he wanted. Saddam kicking out the inspectors was a bad move on his part as he was reasonably successful in corralling them into meaningless activities for the most part.
Ritter? While his work has proven to be reasonably completed and vetted. I can tell you among folks I know that were involved he is regarded with disdain. I can never seem to get to the truth as to why many flat do not like nor trust him.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Hadn’t seriously thought about Iraqi WND’s in years.