A year later, this version of events was still commonly reported by the UK
media:

"The UN special commission charged with overseeing the destruction of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction pulled out of Iraq in mid-December, just before
the US and Britain launched a series of air strikes." (David Hirst, 'Iraq
turns down "evil" UN plan to ease sanctions,' The Guardian, December 20,
1999)

And:

"The last inspectors were withdrawn to allow the four-day concentrated
bombing campaign of last December." ('Russia calls urgent Iraq meeting,'
Guardian staff and agencies June 2, 1999)

As discussed in Part 1, this version of events is not at all popular with
the US/UK governments. Since the election of George W. Bush and the
terrorist attacks of September 11, Bush and Blair have appeared increasingly
determined to launch a further assault against Iraq in pursuit of "regime
change". If military force is to be justified, Iraq has to be portrayed as a
country that cannot be relied upon to cooperate peacefully with arms
inspectors. This is no simple task - Iraqi lying and cat and mouse games
aside, by 1998 Unscom arms inspectors +had+ delivered 90-95% disarmament
after seven years of intrusive inspections.