The Iraq war, initially supported by the American people, is now the most divisive issue in the country. By most accounts, President Bush's place in history and the next presidency hinges on the outcome of a war that has now lasted more than four years and cost more than $500 billion and 3,400 American lives. The biggest area of contention is weapons of mass destruction. Three facts are indisputable regarding Saddam Hussein and WMDs:

Saddam once had them; he defied United Nations resolutions; since the start of the war, we have not found evidence of the weapons.

Theories range from the weapons being moved secretly to Syria or Iran, being buried somewhere in Iraq or simply never having existed in the quantity that we were led to believe they did.

I had an opportunity to interview a man who has been in the middle of this debate since 1991: Scott Ritter. For seven years, Ritter headed the United Nations weapons inspection team that was on the ground in Iraq.

Ritter said he was called to Iraq in 1991 when it was clear "the Iraqis were not being forthright," that they "were hiding 50 percent of the chemical and ballistic capabilities from inspections" and that they "failed to declare biological weapon programs or a nuclear weapons program."

By 1995, Ritter had proof that Iraq had "destroyed everything (WMD) in 1991 they blew it up and buried it underground." Said Ritter, "By 1996, we could really say that we had fundamentally disarmed Iraq." This scenario certainly fits with events as they have unfolded, and rational people on all sides of the issue have to acknowledge this is a realistic scenario regarding Iraq and WMDs.

The critical question, per Ritter's claims: If the weapons were gone and Saddam and Iraq were not a threat to the region, much less to the United States, why did the Clinton and second Bush administration want to eliminate Saddam and attack Iraq?

The answer may surprise you. It's not about oil, Israel, Halliburton or even terrorism. Ritter's theory for our Iraq policies and actions are that once Saddam went from being a friend of the United States (when he was fighting a war with Iran) to an embarrassment (when he attacked Kuwait in August 1991), it led to President George H.W. Bush comparing Saddam to Adolf Hitler and developing a policy of regime change. This effort by the Bush 41 administration included manipulating world events to force President Clinton to continue the regime change policy in Iraq.

Says Ritter about the Kuwaitis' claim regarding Iraq's attempt on President George H.W. Bush's life, "I'm stating flat out that the assassination attempt against George H.W. Bush was a fabrication with assistance from former Bush administration officials to guarantee Bill Clinton would not go down the path of lifting economic sanctions against Iraq."

Ritter claims that this manipulation of the facts led Clinton to order a minimum of three assassination attempts of Saddam, including one in which his United Nations team was used to gather intelligence and gain access for CIA operatives.

Believing Ritter's assessment of "why" requires a leap of faith that Ritter's explanation of the whereabouts of the WMD does not. Regime change and wars motivated by embarrassment are a bit much to swallow. It also begs another question: Why didn't Bush 41 simply continue Iraq's rout in Desert Storm and finish off Saddam? However, with polls showing that millions of Americans believe President George W. Bush orchestrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, it is easy to see how this theory fits nicely for the "Bush lied, people died" conspiracy theorists.

It's possible that Ritter has become so immersed and consumed by his experiences like a first-year med student who develops hypochondria that he is listening to sounds that no one else can hear. However, this is no Cindy Sheehan or Rosie O'Donnell; this is a former Marine intelligence officer, a conservative, a patriot and a weapons inspector who conducted assignments in the Soviet Union and Iraq. Is it possible he is connecting dots the rest of us can't see?

As many of us are, I am struggling to understand what is happening in Iraq and grasp a good policy for the future. Reading Ritter's two most recent books, "Target Iran" and "Waging Peace," has not convinced me of his views, but it has helped me understand the point of those who are so angry and mistrustful of the president.

My concerns with Bush do not extend to his motives, but I question his ability to effectively communicate to the American people. Since we are investing billions of dollars and thousands of lives, it's fair to ask our president: How do we measure success, and when do we bring our men and women home? Bush's opponents, including the highly qualified Ritter, build increasingly compelling arguments in the midst of the information and vision vacuum coming from the White House.

Scott Harris is a political commentator in Ventura County.