Maybe the following has been discussed...I haven't read everything in this thread.
Bush does not strike me as a warmonger.
Yet he insists on going to war when the inspections have been giving some results.
What is going on?
One aspect and maybe the most important one is the cost.
The U.S.A. has incurred enormous costs in outfitting and sending its forces to Iraq.
If they did not do so, I doubt Iraq would have permitted the inspections.
A delay would mean the US of A would face continuing costs which would be borne by its own citizens. Not a popular choice for a president.
To stop the hemorrage, the U.S.A. would have to withdraw its troops. If the president deemed it necessary to send the troops over at a later date, he would face severe criticism about the double expense.
Another aspect of the conflict. Saddam is seen as figuratively thumbing his nose at the U.N. and it's resolutions. I feel the U.S.A. has taken this somewhat personally.
If so, it contributes to the unwillingness of the U.S. of A. to back down. There is a need to teach Saddam a lesson about U.S. resolve. It will also serve as a lesson to any nation who is contemplating to defy it in the future.
Fear and coertion is not a good basis for future relations. But this seems to be the path the U.S. of A. has chosen.
Just some thought to provoke a conversation.