The lastest intel was probably what UN inspectors reported [public knowedge] that Saddam's regime was not fully cooperating and that there was still large quantities of WMD unaccounted for.
The only dispute at that time was what to do about Saddam's non- compliance with the cease-fire agreement. Now, there was lots of people that thought the best solution was to give more time and maybe Saddam would cooperate more or that at the level of cooperation or even with a slightly less level of cooperation the UN inspectors could achieve some results [as they did in the previous years they spent in Iraq. There is a claim that more WMD were destroyed by weapon inspector than during Gulf war I, so it could be argued that weapon inspection could be more effective].
The critical aspect from the American (and Brit) adminstration is had Saddam changed his mind- would he fully cooperate. Would he even cooperate without "needing" an army poised to invade his country?
The same question can be put this way,
"Is Saddam finally willing to end Gulf war I?"
Saddam could "prove" he intended to end the war by following the agreement he made. If he did one part of the agreement, then it's possible he might do the other parts of the agreement.
It seems to me that Saddam wanted to win Gulf war I, and he failed to get what he wanted- he did succeed in maintaining his power for a decade, but in the end he evenually lost this power.
The War on Terror is basically finding which States who are at war with the US, then finding some solution to ending this war. And any State which is deliberately supporting terrorists so that they are opposing the US, are at war with the US. State supported terrorism is war. Terrorist without state support are merely criminals. Terrorism as a political act is something the US will not accept, but will work with terrorists if they are willing to stop acts of terror and enter political dialogue.