Circumstantial evidence
Back before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there was circumstantial evidence that would lead some to think Iraq still had biological and/or chemical weapons. Prior use of WMD’s, Hussein’s brutality, the reluctance to allow U.N. weapons inspectors, certain audio/video clips, and the like. Of course, we found out Iraq simply did not have this weapon capability.
So why was Iraq so reticent to allow weapons inspectors for so long?
Because of Iran. Before Saddam Hussein was executed, he revealed that he wanted to maintain an illusion of strength to blunt Iran’s power. For him, this was the real enemy. He apparently did not feel a U.S. invasion was probable…until it was too late.
Saddam also said he was not an ally of bin Laden. Considering the secularity of Hussein’s government, I’d be very surprised if that wasn’t true. (It should be noted that in many circles, the logic “Hussein is an evil Arab and bin Laden is an evil Arab, so they must be allies” prevailed.)
At the time there were also allegations that UN weapon inspectors were misusing their remit in Iraq and spying for the US. Which would make another good reason not to want them in your country.
Reply to RichardInteresting. That would also add to the logic of Iraq’s decisions.
Reply to Donnie