AIRS: Weeknights 7 p.m. ET / 4 p.m. PT

In the Crossfire

U.S. on Iraq: Disarmament or 'regime change'?

(CNN) -- The Bush administration has reacted skeptically to Iraq's offer to the United Nations to allow weapons inspectors to return immediately "without conditions."

In a letter handed over to the United Nations on Monday, Iraq said it will allow the return of weapons inspectors to "remove any doubts Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter steps into the "Crossfire" with hosts Paul Begala and Robert Novak to debate whether the United States is willing to give Iraq another chance or if it is determined to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

NOVAK: Mr. Ritter, when you were in Baghdad, did you get a sense, or did you talk about the fact that the Iraqi government, which was saying "never" to unconditional inspectors, actually [was] going to agree to them?

RITTER: Actually, before I got to Baghdad, I went to Johannesburg, South Africa, to meet with the [Iraqi] deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz. And in my two meetings with the deputy prime minister, I impressed upon him the harsh reality that Iraq would be destroyed, eliminated in a war against America if they did not accede to the international community's requirements for unconditional return of inspectors and granting them unfettered access.

I told him that this is a message I need to deliver to the Iraqi government. And that's when I said I need to get to Iraq and speak before the Iraqi National Assembly and meet with as many ministerial level people as possible because if Iraq doesn't accede to the international community's will, war between Iraq and the United States is inevitable.

And this is a war that I believe cannot be fought until which time we reconstruct the foundation of legitimacy for action against Iraq, something we haven't had until now. Now that Iraq is committed, if Saddam Hussein fumbles the football now, it's all over for Saddam.

NOVAK: But Mr. Ritter, CNN has reported that the administration is dismissive of this agreement by Iraq. In fact, as you're well aware, [Defense] Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President [Dick] Cheney [have] said they will never agree to open inspection.

Do you believe that this administration is determined to let the bombing begin, no matter what the Iraqis do?

RITTER: Well, this is the ultimate challenge here. What is the policy of the United States? Is it disarmament? I mean, we've been told that Iraq represents a grave and imminent threat to our national security, worthy of war, worthy of the sacrifice of American service members' lives -- the ultimate sacrifice somebody can give to their country. We're told that Iraq is this threat. And this threat comes from weapons of mass destruction.

And now we have a situation where Iraq says what the United States said they had to say all along: unconditional return of inspectors with unfettered access. Is the issue weapons of mass destruction or disarmament? Then get the inspectors back in and let them do their job. And if Saddam fumbles, if he doesn't allow this to happen, now you have a case for war.

Or is this really about regime removal? Is the No. 1 policy objective of the Bush administration regime removal and all this talk about weapons of mass destruction nothing but a facade to legitimatize a war?

BEGALA: And in fact, Scott, Mr. Ritter ...

RITTER: Scott.

BEGALA: The White House story that John King broke on our network lists several other things. They say it's not just about weapons of mass destruction. They point out -- this is quoting a White House official -- there are resolutions dealing with repression within Iraq, resolutions with promises to make reparations to Kuwait, reparations dealing with unaccounted military personnel, including an American pilot. Now what about those three things? Iraq is clearly not going to comply [with] all that.

RITTER: And none of those are worthy of a single American life being lost with the exception of the American pilot. The concept of America going to war because Iraq owes Kuwait money is laughable. The concept of America going to war because Iraq is violent, any number -- one -- of international agreements is laughable. We can only go to war when there is a threat to the national existence of the United States of America. Our national security must be at risk.

And the only thing that Iraq has that could represent that kind of risk is weapons of mass destruction. And that's why we need to be focused on what the international community and international law has said all along: Iraq must disarm. There is absolutely no Security Council resolution on the book talking about the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. That is unilateral American policy.