We knew then what we know now. The UN wasn't finding anything.

These two statements have nothing whatsoever to do with each other in the real world. Do I need to explain that again, too?

The French, Germans, most of the rest of the Security Council knew the information wasn't there.

This is bullshit.

Read the text of 1441 again. Try and find ANYTHING that implies a certainty that Iraq had no weapons.

I pulled up, almost at random, a transcript of a U.N. Security Council meeting discussing 1441, in October of 2002. The French representative speaks:

Since December 1998, United Nations disarmament inspectors have no longer been present in Iraq. For nearly four years now, the international community has not been able to verify whether Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and whether it is pursuing programmes to that end.

By refusing to allow the return of United Nations inspectors, Iraq has defied the international community and the authority of the Security Council. Even though France does not possess irrefutable proof, there are several indications that Iraq has used this situation to pursue or resume its prohibited programmes, notably in the chemical and biological areas. The behaviour of the Baghdad authorities has given rise to strong suspicions in this regard.

This situation cannot be tolerated. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, in Iraq or elsewhere, constitutes a serious threat to international security. In the face of this challenge, it is the Security Council’s duty to place firmness and lucidity in the service of a common objective. For France, that objective is the disarmament of Iraq. This implies the return of the inspectors and the resumption of monitoring on the ground.

From this meeting, in March of 2003, just days before the invasion. Again, a French representative:

We are meeting here today, just a few hours before hostilities begin, to exchange our opinions once again in observance of our respective commitments, but also to outline together the path that must allow us to recover the spirit of unity.

I wish to reiterate here that for France, war can only be a last resort, while collective responsibility remains the rule. However much we may dislike Saddam Hussain’s cruel regime, that holds true for Iraq and for every crisis that we will have to confront together.

To Mr. Blix, who introduced his work programme, and to Mr. ElBaradei, who was represented today, I wish to say thank you for the sustained efforts and the results achieved. Their programme reminds us that there is still a clear and credible prospect for disarming Iraq peacefully. It proposes and prioritizes the tasks involved in disarmament and presents a realistic timetable for their implementation.

In so doing, the report confirms what we knew all along. Yes, the inspections are producing tangible results. Yes, they offer the prospect of effective disarmament through peaceful means and in shorter time frames.

You don't "disarm" someone that you think has no weapons.

You should read the rest of the statements--I think you would agree with much of what is said there, and I don't mean that sarcastically. But my point is limited to this one issue:

Everybody and their cat thought Saddam was up to no good with WMD. The arguments were about what to do about it.