I see below another iteration of the tired argument that since Iraq was in violation of this UNSC resolution, or that, the United States had ample justification for invasion.

If violations of UNSC resolutions were a real justification for invasion, then the United States should have invaded Israel a long time ago, for that nation is in violation of numerous UNSC resolutions, including 1073 from 1996 which "calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

Israel is also in violation of UNSC resolutions 262, 271, 298, 446, 452, 465, 471, 484, 487, 497, 573, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 726, 799, 904, and 1435. In all at least 91 UNSC resolutions are being violated. In addtion to Israel's numerous transgressions, Turkey, Cypress, Russia, Armenia, and Pakistan, to name a few, are in violation.

The entire list, as of late 2002, UN Security Council Resolutions currently being violated by countries other than Iraq, can be read here, in PDF, or here, in html

I see also that President Bush used patently false material to support his State of the Union Address claim that Iraq was trying to rebuild its nuclear program. If the evidence was so overwhelming, why did the Chief Exec need to use such obviously bogus material, especially when his own CIA had fingered the goods as fake?

Let's just have a quick review of how this works.

1) A UN Security Council resolution - or the founding Charter of the UN, for that matter - is only to be cited when it supports your case; otherwise it may be ignored.

2) It's OK for a Republican president to lie, even in his State of the Union Address, but absolutely forbidden for a Democratic president to lie, even if his fib has absolutely nothing to do with the business of the nation, or its security.

Double standard, anyone?

sp