It isn't a cynical ploy, it's raw logic.

- Saddam has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt in the past that he has tried to develop WMD, including nuclear weapons. Israel squashed one attempt, and the Gulf War squashed another.

- Given this, as long as Saddam is in power, there is absolutely no reason to believe that he has changed his desire for WMD.

- There is no logical way for Iraq, or any nation for that matter to "prove" they do not have a particular item within their borders. Not bombs. Not biolabs. Probably not even nuclear reactors. Could you come up with a method to "prove" there were no kangaroos in Texas? The secret reactor where America developed fission years ago was hidden under the stands of a football field.

The entire "inspection" program is a sham, was a sham from the second it was proposed, and designed primarily to make the U.N. think it has some relevance and to shut up those people who think the United States can't morally defend itself without the express permission of Mauritius and Red China.

- Impasse. We either take out Saddam's regime, and end the problem, or pack up, go home, and wait for him to actually set off the bombs. Because he will not quit until he has them.

Now you may decide that it's better for Saddam, a proven psychopath, to have atomic bombs and the means to deliver them to Israel, or bioweapons and the means to deliver them to terrorist networks, than for America to take him out. That's up to you and your political upbringing.

You can pretend that it's only about oil if it makes you feel better, but you can't pretend there is any other alternative.