Some people realize 20/20 hindsight is not the proper way to judge decisions. Decisions have to be made based on the information at hand. Those that were opposed to the war wanted a higher standard of evidence. In this instance those demanding a higher standard of evidence appear to be in a good position to crow although contrary to their claims the jury is still out. Prior to 9/11 the higher standard of evidence was accepted by the Clinton administration and not immediately challenged by the Bush administration and we lost 3000 lives. Those crowing over their moral righteousness over Iraq seem to forget this and be incapable of acknowledging it. Stopping crime has always been a trade off between suspects rights and protecting the innocent.

In short you and many others keep asking the wrong question. It's not "were we justified in attacking Iraq if they don't have weapons of mass destruction" its "are we justified in treating someone as a threat if they act like they are a threat". When you combine that question with Saddam's treatment of his own people and neighbors most people do not and will not see a problem with deciding to take Saddam out based on his 10 year record of obstruction and evasion of his post GW1 resonsibilities whether or not he actually had WMD. He is the one primarily responsible for that belief not manufactured data by British or US intelligence.

That said, they screwed up the postwar planning badly and Zinni's remarks there are both believable and on target whether Tom wants to admit it or not. His comments on the UN however overlook both its past failures in similar situations and its record of failure to make Saddam live up to his obligations. The UN's failure made it very reasonable to try another path, but there are big obvious flaws in the path Bush chose and now he may need the UN's to help us dig ourselves out of the hole initial miscalculation has dug. That help however, should be limited to where the UN is clearly of potential value and not wholesale turnover to a generally innefectual body.

Regards,
Mark