"After the war, and after all the weapons Saddam provided for destruction, Bush must have had less than a year to suspect that not all was disclosed." - Ben Gurion Actually we had confused the issue by blowing up an ammo dump in southern Iraq which contained large number of Mk 141A1 chemical shells supplied by the US. So we knew from the get-go, that Saddam couldn't account for everything. I think G.H.W. Bush's decision not to topple Hussein was prudent as his son, Oedipus Bush, has proven. I think that the policy of containment, that until Saddam had clearly complied with all UN resolutions and the treaty his government signed; that sanctions continue and the 'no fly' zones be enforced, was also prudent. It would not have been wise to let up on Saddam without total compliance, nor would it have been wise to topple him by external force. As for Maudlin Halfbright, I never had much respect for her. There is a feature to the enforcement that you may not have considered. We were able to cycle an entire generation of fighter pilots, AWACs operators, and Electronic Warfare specialists through the theater for some low-risk, real combat operations. I think the fact that Saddam tried to whack G.H.W. Bush at least twice (and almost did it one time), impressed Clinton. You might have wanted to see a stronger Iraq to cow a powerful Iran, but the government of Iran had never been as reckless and foolish as Saddam was when he invaded Kuwait. From the standpoint of two US administrations, Saddam in a Box was suitable enough thorn in Iran's side. I think that Saddam was the kind of imprudent guy that would have gone right back to being a problem as soon as sanctions were off.
Colombia recalls ambassador to Venezuela amid border crisis (Reuters)
from the article: Ahmadinejad can continue to smile while the world argues