[palmer]

What I was talking about was "the issue" which, it seems, some people are getting their panties in a bind over: namely, was the "justification" for war (in front of the UN) wrong. But the only thing that justification required was for Saddam to be in violation of Resolution XYZ (1441, whatever).

We are not obligated or responsible for enforcing U.N. resolutions. Our defense is for defending us not the U.N.'s existence or effectiveness.

Apparently, they don't "acknowledge" that, otherwise why is there this criticism for not finding them and thereby proving they were there?

I shouldn't have said "everybody". I disagree with people arguing there are no WMD, because I think they will ultimately be proven wrong. I also disagree with people who think Saddam's WMD were a threat to us. As for the wimps in Congress who ceded war powers to president, I don't think that was done only using objective evaluations of the threat. Mostly it seems there was political pressure enhanced by several stories about WMD just before the vote. They turned out to be rubbish (e.g. aluminum tubes, buying uranium in Africa, etc), but they had the desired effect.

[Dr. Frank fan]

We are not obligated or responsible for enforcing U.N. resolutions.

I know. Who said we were? It just so happened that, in this case, we wanted to. :-)

As for the wimps in Congress who ceded war powers to president, I don't think that was done only using objective evaluations of the threat.

Possibly not. Vote 'em out then. Your argument is with them.