However, your message of 25 Feb at 10:56 applies to the second paragraph. You said Bush would not be justified invading Iraq without the U. N.'s approval. Not so. Read that portion of my post again.

I didn't post anything on 25 Feb at 10:56, so I'm going to assume you meant 26 Feb at 10:56. Here's the part I think you are referring to:

People who wave that resolution around as justification for Bush to prosecute the war need to understand that if he does so without the go ahead from the UN (which he does not have right now), he will be doing it in violation of international laws that the US is bound to by the fact of having agreed to them and having signed them.

You take too many liberties with other people's words, DougR. Nowhere in that paragraph is there any language saying "Bush would not be justified invading Iraq without the U.N.'s approval"

What it does say is that he would be violating international laws (and US laws for that matter) that the US agreed to and signed. (Which would, of course, make him an international criminal, just like Saddam Hussien). Whether or not you can see the difference between those two statements, there is, nevertheless, a very big one.