[rmnunez]

I think Bush wanted to attack Iraq and Saddam nicely set himself up for that. Undeniably there was deception from Saddam, he admitted he sought to induce the impression he had WMDs to keep the Iranians at bay since his military had been demolished after Desert Storm and he couldn't rebuild them fast enough with all the sanctions and import restrictions.

Unfortunately, his exagerations may have fueled fear in Bush after intervention in Afghanistan since the troops there could be within range. Obviously Saddam wasn't about to admit he was just bluffing, so the inspectors got the run around and Bush got more antsy, felt like his concerns were not being taken into account.

Did the rest of the world know Saddam was bluffing? Why didn't someone tell Bush it was just a hoax to keep the Iranians back?

Saddam gave us indicia of WMD procurement, he had all sorts of suspicious purchases, research programs, inventories of unaccounted for precluded materials allegedly destroyed without a trace, all of this suggests there was some WMDs in Iraq, none were allowed, all should have been surrendered, none were.

Pursuit and even possesion of WMDs was not the only thing that made Iraq a good target. There was the deplorable human rights record, the genocidical slaughter of Kurds and erradication of the Marsh Arabs. Saddam also repressed, persecuted and killed political dissidents, incarcerating, expropriating and exiling whole families. If inducing the impression he was dabbling in WMDs, plus the ocassional genocidical atrocity, as well as severe repression of any political dissent weren't enough, Saddam also had attacked Kuwait and Iran, which would reasonably support the notion he was dangerous to his neighbors and there are a number of them which are big oil suppliers the US relies on. Toss in the suggestion he may have had some terrorist contacts, resentment over alleged plots he was involved in to kill Bush's father and the ocassional shot at no-fly enforcers, and it makes a good argument to attack Iraq.