As I understand it, negotiations with Ghadaffi were started during the Clinton administration. They were continued during W. Bush's time.
Lybia has oil. Need we say more?
Teribus says "The answer to that is fairly simple, the former after having agreed to rid his country of the ability to threaten his neighbours and terrorise his own population reneged on the deal, having been given every opportunity to disarm in a manner that could be verified by the international community. The latter has made a statement of intent to the international community and declared his country's willingness to have that process of disarmament verified - I believe South Africa did the same and achieved that successfully."
Why should the US trust Ghadaffi any more than Hussein?
South Africa was for many years an unwilling participant in wanting to abandon it's anti-democratic practices of apartheid. It was only after world pressure prevailed that is was forced to change its policy.
As to disarmament, it becomes clear that strategic nuclear strikes or even tactical ones become irrelevant when biological weapons can be developed more economically and quickly. Or even hi-jacking airliners. (a cheaper terrorist option). The WMD quest is a red-herring when smaller, leaner more efficient ways to terrorize are available. Didn't we see this in the USSR when that country backrupted itself in the development of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons? It wasn't cost efficient.
Can we trust Ghadaffi to do anything? It's a cat and mouse game with another terrorist. Does anyone believe that he wasn't behind the Lockerbie crime? Or are we still subscribing to the policy of "plausible deniability"?