Remember if Saddam had been completely open and had done his utmost to be seen as being completely open there would have been no war.

I think that is a pretty questionable assumption. It seems to be generally agreed that the issue of WPDs was not the central issue for Washington, even if was was for the UK, at least in terms of political tactics.

For Washington the central issue was "regime change". Claims about WMDs, along with attempts to create a belief in an association between Iraq and Al Qaeda, were ways of bolstering support for this central objective.

In the event there was a rush to war, which meant troops being sent into asction inadatequately equipped. It seems likely that a major reason for this may have been that Saddam's regime was in fact starting to cooperate with the arms inspectors in a way that had previously not been the case.