not sure I understand:

"In that case, the resolutions post date the initial war, rendering the whole analogy invalid."

In both Kuwait and Korea, one side invaded the other, and then the UN passed resolutions authorizing force.


"As for any Iraqi threat to hit the US, even after a war that was a stunning humiliation for Iraq, they had never made any move to strike the US, or did they,? I am sure you will tell me. "

Have you read the British report on the Iraqi capacity for WMD, or seen the news about the Russian warning that Iraq was planning to attack the US?

REGARDLESS of how true they were, they were the best information that was available- and after 9/11, to NOT act at a credible threat would have been irrisponsible, and met with far more noise here than the war has.

One CANNOT blame Bush for NOT acting on the information about 9/11, before the act, and then blame him for acting on information that I would say was more credible and substantiated about Iraq.