WGP guy wrote: Dune wrote: Yes, because one man speaks for the entire party. So, you aren't really a democrat then.  If all of you have different views, then you aren't really a party.

Yeah, every republican thinks exactilly the same, didnt you know?

oldsoldier wrote: And before we go off on the usual WMD or war for oil retoric, read the three reasons stated in Bush's resolution for the war in Iraq, which was endorsed by the majority of congress, prominant democrats included.

Wesley Clark and Kosovo aside,

Let's see, we went to war for WMD, which there are none. 1400 soldiers have died to relieve Saddam of aforementioned nonexistent weapons. Bukus of experts tried to tell W(armonger) that they didn't exist, which he ignored. The V.P.'s own former company (Halliburton) has landed every contract for oil that nobody else could bid on. They are under investigation for 12 charges of fraud, but continue to be paid in full, which is against the federal code, which states that one-half of payment is withheld until investigations of fraud are concluded. The oil companies posted their highest profits ever in history last year, but Americans pay $2.00 per gallon for gasoline and the price never goes down. The oil companies aren't into profit sharing, I guess.

Facts don't turn into rhetoric just because you label them as such. Rhetoric is rhetoric, like calling anyone who opposed the war in Iraq a liberal or democrat, despite who they voted for or believe.

Hello, hello, hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod of you can hear me. Is there anyone home?

Badsmitty wrote: Goodsmitty, you are not staying current with G.W.'s politics of multiple realities.  W.M.D.'s became liberation became democracy for the Iraqi's.  Geez the neocons are keeping things two-word simple for their legions and you can't keep up.  Tort reform.  Tax reform.  Constitutional amendment.  Iraqi elections.  Moral majority.  Tax cuts.  Iraqi freedom.  etc. etc. etc.

Don't forget Media bias, Patriot Act, **edited** marriage, pro-life, and flip-flop.

I think that is why my logic flies right over the heads of the conservatives. It's too wordy. Let me re-word my earlier post:

No weapons

Dirty contracts

Dead Soldiers.

goodsmitty wrote: Badsmitty wrote: Goodsmitty, you are not staying current with G.W.'s politics of multiple realities.  W.M.D.'s became liberation became democracy for the Iraqi's.  Geez the neocons are keeping things two-word simple for their legions and you can't keep up.  Tort reform.  Tax reform.  Constitutional amendment.  Iraqi elections.  Moral majority.  Tax cuts.  Iraqi freedom.  etc. etc. etc.      Don't forget Media bias, Patriot Act, **edited** marriage, pro-life, and flip-flop. I think that is why my logic flies right over the heads of the conservatives. It's too wordy. Let me re-word my earlier post: No weapons Dirty contracts Dead Soldiers.

Don't forget:  Private accounts *alternate reality shift* Personal accounts, ownership society, evil doers and swift boats.  I see where the Dems messed up.  Too much reliance on complete sentences.  That's how Kerry blew it.  He should have kept a two word minimum.  Nas Car, Bud Weiser, Wal Mart, Red Neck, Gun Rack, Rebel Flag and Minimum Wage. 

Hysteria wrote: goodsmitty wrote: oldsoldier wrote: And before we go off on the usual WMD or war for oil retoric, read the three reasons stated in Bush's resolution for the war in Iraq, which was endorsed by the majority of congress, prominant democrats included. Wesley Clark and Kosovo aside, Let's see, we went to war for WMD, which there are none. 1400 soldiers have died to relieve Saddam of aforementioned nonexistent weapons. Bukus of experts tried to tell W(armonger) that they didn't exist, which he ignored. The V.P.'s own former company (Halliburton) has landed every contract for oil that nobody else could bid on. They are under investigation for 12 charges of fraud, but continue to be paid in full, which is against the federal code, which states that one-half of payment is withheld until investigations of fraud are concluded. The oil companies posted their highest profits ever in history last year, but Americans pay $2.00 per gallon for gasoline and the price never goes down. The oil companies aren't into profit sharing, I guess. Facts don't turn into rhetoric just because you label them as such. Rhetoric is rhetoric, like calling anyone who opposed the war in Iraq a liberal or democrat, despite who they voted for or believe. Hello, hello, hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod of you can hear me. Is there anyone home? Yes we did find weapons of mass destruction.  We found enough sarin gas, that if detonated in the right places could kill like 60,000 people (I heard the number a while ago, and im not sure if it is exactly correct).  That is considered a Weapon, and 60,000 people is "Mass Destruction" so why is this not a "Weapon of Mass Destruction"? Do you realize gas stations set prices, not 'ole Dubbya?

Are you from Mars? We never found any WMD.

Hysteria wrote: CougarBattalion wrote: A WMD is more like a nuke, or some kind of very deadly chemical or bio agent, such as small pox and the like.  It's still kind of iffy though. How is a gas that kills 60,000 people not a very deadly chemical agent?  9/11 only killed 3,000 people, and yet you seem to think 60,000 dead is not a big deal...

You ARE from Mars. How does a conventional munition kill 60k people? The only nuclear rounds ever used on people only killed 60k people, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You are posting nonsense.

oldsoldier wrote: ...the South has risen......and we "Nas Car, Bud Weiser, Wal Mart, Red Neck, Gun Rack, Rebel Flag and Minimum Wage" Red`Staters have taken back America from those who thought their new enlightened values are better than our current moral values, which are for the lefts review, Love of Country, Love of Life, Love of Wife (marriage between a man and women for those who do not understand), and Love of Liberty, and we will forever resist those who care to take any of these away from us, be they foriegn or domestic.

What does that even mean?

Rednecks have taken back the country?

Wha...  how...

What are you talking about?

The truth, of course, is that Nader is right - there is very little difference between the two major parties.  We get hung up on very discreet issues like abortion or stem cell research because Democrats and Republicans agree on most everything else.

Compare either Democrats or Republicans to some of the parties you see in parliamentary systems (for instance) - communists, green parties, libertarian parties, christian socialists, etc., etc.

The differences between our two parties come down to a few percentage points of taxation, slightly different foreign policy principles, slightly different labor views, and so forth.

The President makes a thousand decisions every day.  How many of those do you honestly think would be made differently by another President?  The President is primarily an administrator - and administration is primarily measured by competence, not by policy.

Neither party has proposed to outlaw cars, to cut all taxation to zero, to cap personal fortunes, to drop the minimum wage, to reintroduce slavery, or anything else of the kind - because both of our parties are mainstream.

"Us vs. Them" bickering is always counterproductive in a democracy - in a two-party system it is downright foolish.

Clark Kent wrote: oldsoldier wrote: ...the South has risen......and we "Nas Car, Bud Weiser, Wal Mart, Red Neck, Gun Rack, Rebel Flag and Minimum Wage" Red`Staters have taken back America from those who thought their new enlightened values are better than our current moral values, which are for the lefts review, Love of Country, Love of Life, Love of Wife (marriage between a man and women for those who do not understand), and Love of Liberty, and we will forever resist those who care to take any of these away from us, be they foriegn or domestic. What does that even mean? Rednecks have taken back the country? Wha...  how... What are you talking about?

You must learn the mentality Clark.  You are dealing with the new anti-intellectualism.  The clock is ticking backwards. 

Dune wrote: Average American? Who's to say that? So Average American is not left wing, although the election was almost dead even, that's barely even a majority. Taken back the country with values? What kind of moral values? The value of discrimination against those different from the white, middle class?

I think you need to remember one basic principle, majority rules.  It doesn't matter how much, one number just has to be greater than the other.  Last time I checked, more than just the white middle class wanted illegal immigrants kicked out of the country. <start sarcasim here> But who cares?  We are discriminating!  It doesn't matter that they are breaking the law, they have constitutional rights.  <end sarcasim>

Actually, the white upper-middle class wants to KEEP the illegal immigrants - where do you think they get their maids, nannies, and gardners?  That's part of the problem.

But did I miss something?  Are we talking immigration now?

oldsoldier wrote: The usual joke used to be "Save your Dixie cups the South shall rise again" and now it has come back to haunt the Blue State elites, and the South has risen......and we "Nas Car, Bud Weiser, Wal Mart, Red Neck, Gun Rack, Rebel Flag and Minimum Wage" Red`Staters have taken back America from those who thought their new enlightened values are better than our current moral values, which are for the lefts review, Love of Country, Love of Life, Love of Wife (marriage between a man and women for those who do not understand), and Love of Liberty, and we will forever resist those who care to take any of these away from us, be they foriegn or domestic. And you two still have not enlightened us with the information we still seek....... Where are Saddam's weapons, the ones he had and used after Desert Storm on the Kurds, and all the documentation required by UN Resolution on its destruction........we are waiting for you to tell us,

"moral values" did not win the day for Bush, rampant close-mindedness did. He terror-fied the homophobic, two-word train of thought, knuckle-dragging majority with daily baseless terror warnings, and it worked. Don't ask why Bush ignored every advisor who told him not to go into Iraq, you need to protect yourself from **edited** marriages and stem cells.

I cannot tell you where the WMD is, but I can tell you where Hans Blix said it wasn't before we got into this debacle..........IRAQ! And guess what? He's was right.

kiolia wrote: Badsmitty wrote: Clark Kent wrote: oldsoldier wrote: ...the South has risen......and we "Nas Car, Bud Weiser, Wal Mart, Red Neck, Gun Rack, Rebel Flag and Minimum Wage" Red`Staters have taken back America from those who thought their new enlightened values are better than our current moral values, which are for the lefts review, Love of Country, Love of Life, Love of Wife (marriage between a man and women for those who do not understand), and Love of Liberty, and we will forever resist those who care to take any of these away from us, be they foriegn or domestic. What does that even mean? Rednecks have taken back the country? Wha...  how... What are you talking about? You must learn the mentality Clark.  You are dealing with the new anti-intellectualism.  The clock is ticking backwards.  and you call republicans bigots? ack.

Bigots?

Hoff ,

First off, if you understand our American political system , the majority DOESNT rule anymore !! , its the electoral Majority that rules , Very different...

and I started reading this thread because OS posted it , and didnt intend to read most of the 4 pages involved , but I have ..

There are civil rights being violated everyday ,even on home soil , so the position that any conflict is worthwhile for us to get get involved in , because of that , is ludicrus . this sounds isolationistic , and maybe it is . but we should tend to matters in our own house ,before cleaning house somewhere else .

Wars (conflicts) are socio-economic events , and will be forever driven by political , and economic motivations . there may have been Some WMD's in iraq , and they MAY be now Hidden from prying eyes . we have certainly taken away their ability to develop any more , but what exists , can be easily hidden .

The debate will go on forever there , and we will never fully know the truth of the matter . Propaganda , or as the politically correct term now calls itself "Public Relations" will guarantee that .

OS you mentioned Kosovo , if America was truely intent on "solving" the problems there , would they not have had over-seer's in place to assure things were on the up and up , and continued to be ? I'd think so . but now,,, kosovo isnt the PR advantage (to us) is was a few years back , so it doesnt get the US support , or backing we promised

In Iraq , we have a financial incentive to see things are taken care of , the Middle East is the "Breadbasket" (oil basket) of the world , and stability must be maintained to some degree to keep the world's economies rolling , America has chosen the lesser of several evils numerous times , and each sucession has been just as bad , or worse than the original dictatorships we intended to replace . You see , I remember back to Ayotolahha Kohmenie (SP?) when we backed Saddam Hussien , yep , we helped put that guy in charge ,if you remember , and several others too , whom we've all come to regret doing so for,,,,

But rest assured , America will step in and try to make the right choice , no matter how many people , both foriegn born , and domestically born must perish , to make things right .

I for one would like to see Rednecks , hill-billys , and simple thinkers take back america and start over .

Dune wrote: Immigrants breaking the law? Well I guess, all our ancestors should be arrested too, right? Or maybe not because it worked out for you. Everyone deserves the chance to come into the country. That's why it's called free, unless it's only supposed to be free to those who are white, male, and wealthy.

Stop your open-minded bantering! It doesn't conform to conservative thinking. The "new conservative self-righteousness in 10 days bible" wipes out Jesus' teachings on helping the poor, widows, orphans, etc. It is replaced with teachings that we must strongly admonish them to "pick themselves up by their boot straps, and stay the heck outa our country". The same goes for **edited**s and sex-mad libbies wanting an abortion.

Shadowminion wrote: I for one would like to see Rednecks , hill-billys , and simple thinkers take back America and start over .

They did take over, in November, 2004. And what do you mean take it "back". Do you think that Chimpy McFlightsuit and the clown posse are even remotely comparable to the founding fathers? Most of them died for what they believed in. Chimpy's boys all sent someone else off to die for what they believe in, while getting a deferment for college.

oldsoldier wrote: ....if you look at the posting the initial "redneck" reference was by Badsmitty posts: "Don't forget: Private accounts *alternate reality shift* Personal accounts, ownership society, evil doers and swift boats. I see where the Dems messed up. Too much reliance on complete sentences. That's how Kerry blew it. He should have kept a two word minimum. Nas Car, Bud Weiser, Wal Mart, Red Neck, Gun Rack, Rebel Flag and Minimum Wage."

Ahh...  Makes sense now. 

...we Conservatives try and take the higher road of debate of issues over personality attacks, and pure derogatory statements.

I am beginning to think that you honestly believe this, OS...  (!)

Well, there is Limbaugh and his clones.  There are the "Flush the Johns" bumper stickers, with their clever illustrations.  And, as you reminded us, the "Slick Willie" label, the relentless personal attacks on Hillary Clinton and Mrs. Kerry.

These were not invented by lefties, OS...  The hands of the Republicans are no cleaner than the Democrats'.

My simple point, OS:  There is no political group that refrains from irrational statements, personal attacks, dirty politics.  Any statement that "my group" is better than "your group" is simply and obviously false.

No group in Washington has taken the high road.  Nobody's hands are clean.

As to personas - as I have said before, off-line is irrelevant.  On the internet, the internet is all you are.  Most people behave differently on an internet forum than they do off-line - obviously.  It just doesn't matter.

Hysteria wrote: You take out one key word and change the orignal meaning completly.  No, he was not talking about just immigrants.  He was talking about Illegal immigrants.  Yes, they are breaking the law.

There - with a simple deletion, I changed an irrational generalization into a valid point.

See how easy it is?

Doesn't matter.  They could be the same person.  They could be Dubya making fun of us.  Don't know, don't care, doesn't matter.

oldsoldier wrote: Your position baffles me, you make a definitive statement on the tactics, yet claim no defined position yourself.   Are you that middle of the road, or prefere to stay neutral on certian matters.

I have a position on most matters.  I just can't even get to the position, because I get so frustrated by the process.

Too often, the substance of any discussion is buried in so much rhetoric and labeling that I don't even bother to state my position.

Clark Kent wrote: oldsoldier wrote: Your position baffles me, you make a definitive statement on the tactics, yet claim no defined position yourself.   Are you that middle of the road, or prefere to stay neutral on certian matters. I have a position on most matters.  I just can't even get to the position, because I get so frustrated by the process. Too often, the substance of any discussion is buried in so much rhetoric and labeling that I don't even bother to state my position.

Want me to attack you? 

oldsoldier wrote: When have I ever used other than representative reference as below remarks against any single Democratic political personality. I still us Mr. Clinton, not Slick-Willie, Mr Kerry, not POAG (look it up). These two and many from the left excell in the personality attack over issue substance. I asked and asked...If there are none now, and they were used in 1992 on the Kurds, where are the remaining stocks, and or the documentation of the destruction of the remaining stocks as per UN resolution and still no answer from the Smitty's just another attack on a differant tact. I asked on what was the substance of Mr Kerry's "I have a plan on__________" statements during the debates, and no on can find any written documentation or reference to any of these plans. And the same two ignore that and throw another personal attack on President Bush. And that seems to be the norm here and in the major left leaning media........ Give us substance from the Left side of the circus we call government, a plan, a position, something other than Bush, Conservatives, Republicans are stupid rednecks, bible thumpers, etc.

goodsmitty wrote: "moral values" did not win the day for Bush, rampant close-mindedness did. He terror-fied the homophobic, two-word train of thought, knuckle-dragging majority with daily baseless terror warnings, and it worked. Don't ask why Bush ignored every advisor who told him not to go into Iraq, you need to protect yourself from **edited** marriages and stem cells. I cannot tell you where the WMD is, but I can tell you where Hans Blix said it wasn't before we got into this debacle..........IRAQ! And guess what? He's was right.

OS, I found your answer, unless you weren't looking for this kind.

Goodsmitty, does that mean that you're not excuding the chance that there may be WMDs buried somewhere?

Badsmitty wrote: If he admits that there could be W.M.D.'s buried in the desert and Bush had the right to go look for them, will you admit that there may be none and Bush may have committed a colossal goatscrew by attacking Iraq?  Don't wait for the translation!  Answer me now!

I had to read that a few times. lol

Yeah, I'll admit that he may have made a big mistake too.

I guess it works both ways.

oldsoldier wrote: I just equate the UN on matters that the US brings to it's attention akin to the UN playing the "public defender" in any criminal case. The UN and Hans Blix did what every defense attorney in the world does, state that there is no evidense, do all they can to mislead investigations, and allways sides with the defendant against the accuser if it happens to be the US. And if the UN is in the prosecuter mode, the US is allways guilty before trial. Like any criminal who can be caught with the goods, the Iraqis did use chemical munitions on the Kurds, was directed by the UN to disclose its remaining stocks and research ,then declare and provide documentation on destruction, and till the fall of the regime did neither. It put UN inspectors throught the hide and seek drills, needless if there were no stocks to scramble around hiding. And if any reasonable person can emphatically state that there is no possibility that a rogue nation and leader with a history of use and research into these weapons, did not at one time with intent defraud the UN resolutions it agreed to upon the ceasation of Desert Storm hostilities, and the potential of these stocks and research documentation and or equipment being hidden somewhere in the vast countryside is blind to human nature. Any individual who is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, will do all he can to hide the cookies when asked. And one other question...Why did the UN Human Rights Commision state in a report dated late in 1998, (looking for the actual report now, stand by)state that Iraq was not in violation of Human Rights accords per accusations of Iraqi dissadents backed by guess who, yes the United States, who accused the Iraq government with attrocities against its people. The UN found no evidense of these attrocities and conducted an investigation within Iraq again finding no evidense. So now that the war is over, the "death camps", "mass graves", "video tapes of", "rape rooms" and other evidense now disclosed, is this issue not a red flag on UN investigations and a possible anti-US bias. And lets not overlook the infalible UN in the Oil for Food fiasco now brewing.....

What are we arguing, rape rooms or WMD? My point is that the man in charge of investigating the existence of WMD, Hans, told us before the war that there were none. Bush ignored Blix and went to war anyway, because in your estimation, he had them at one time. So if we attacked him because he had them at some point in time, but not at the present, doesn't that make our attack a war of retribution?

"Doin' good ain't got no end"

-Cpt "Redlegs" Terrill, "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (Geo. Bush icon)

The end justifies the means Gsmitty.  It's more GW alternate reality.  Iraq had W.M.D.'s which became a humanitarian mission which in turn justified the Patriot Act and hit squads that answer to no congressional over-sight under the control of the Pentagon and Rummy (think Yellow Fruit Scandal and Iran Contra).  It just gets better and better. 

Hello.  Hello.  Hello.  Is there anybody in there?  Just nod if you can hear me.  Is there anyone home?

oldsoldier wrote: So if we look at this from a "Law and Order" sense most of you could understand. Saddam Hussein violated his parole agreement placed upon him and his government by the UN co-allition in 1992 upon ceasation of hostilities which his government initially instigated. After several failed attempts by the parole officials for his co-operation with his parole, the "police" in effect executed a "search warrent" and placed Saddam Hussein under arrest.

This reasoning is common.  There is a single flaw, however.

If the "law" is the UN resolution, and the "parole officials" are the UN inspectors, then the "police" would be a UN AUTHORIZED COALITION.  This is a central part of it.  The UN resolutions are for the UN to enforce, and the UN only.  The US has no more right to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions than you have right to enforce criminal laws.

For the US to go in under cover of "he's violating the UN resolution" isn't a police action - it is vigilantism.

The better analogy is this:  Criminal is barricaded in his house.  He has violated numerous laws as well as parole conditions.  The police negotiators are working on him, but not having much success.  The police is present and has evaluated storming the building but has decided not to do so.  Suddenly an bunch of heavily armed guys show up.  They try to convince the police to charge, and still the police refuses.  The civilians then declare "well, if the police isn't gonna get him, we'll do it ourselves," whereupon they storm the building and capture the criminal.

We weren't the police, OS, we were vigilantes.

And even by analogizing us to the police, when in fact we are vigilantes, you encapsulate perfectly why so much of the world hates us so much.

oldsoldier wrote: Unfortuanately Clark, we are authorized per the initital cease fire agreement, any signatory of the initial Cease Fire Agreement, is per that agreement allowed to act, unilaterally if needed to immediately resume hostilities upon Iraq not conforming to the agreement. So the US reaction after 1447 violations of UN Resolutions is within the scope of the original document.

I did not know this.  That certainly changes things.  I'll have to go take a look.

Ok - this is non-obvious.  OS, do you have a link to a site explaining the authority?

Clark Kent wrote: oldsoldier wrote: Unfortuanately Clark, we are authorized per the initital cease fire agreement, any signatory of the initial Cease Fire Agreement, is per that agreement allowed to act, unilaterally if needed to immediately resume hostilities upon Iraq not conforming to the agreement. So the US reaction after 1447 violations of UN Resolutions is within the scope of the original document. I did not know this.  That certainly changes things.  I'll have to go take a look.

Ok, I took a look.

The Congressional authorizing resolution for the 1993 invasion of Iraq can be found http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html - here .

The relevant portion reads:

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;"

Tracking through this:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/10/IMG/NR057510.pdf?OpenElement - Resolution 660 orders Iraq to get out of Kuwait.  http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/28/IMG/NR057528.pdf?OpenElement - Resolution 678 authorizes Member States (i.e. anybody) in cooperation with Kuwait to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.

These two resolutions together authorized the first Gulf War.  Both are very specific that they involve getting Iraq out of Kuwait.  Where Bush gets creative is that Resolution 678 authorized Member States "...to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."  (emphasis added)

Bush's theory, as I understand it, is that this language essentially amounts to a carte blanche for unilateral action in the Middle East, or at least against Iraq, potentially forever.

Moving on:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement - Resolution 687 is the ceasefire agreement after the first Gulf War.  It basically orders Iraq to behave and give up WMDs.  It specifically states that there now exists a ceasefire with Iraq.  Resolution 687 does NOT authorize any unilateral Member State force to enforce the resolution.  On the contrary, it states that the Security Council decides to "remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region."

"Remain seized of" is international law code for "this is our bidness now."  By this statement, the Council expressly reserves further authority on the subject.

The rest of the resolutions aren't as exciting, until we get to http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/723/72/PDF/N0272372.pdf?OpenElement - Resolution 1447 .  It has a couple of interesting phrases:  The Security Council says that it is "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq," and "Decides to remain seized of the matter."

This translates, IMO, into "you guys leave this to us, and stay out."

The only way that the UN resolutions authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq is if the language from Resolution 678 somehow forever authorizes the US (and everybody else) to invade Iraq whenever they want, EVEN WHEN THE UN HAS CLEARLY SAID THAT THEY ARE ON TOP OF THE SITUATION.  Resolution 678 was clearly intended to authorize immediate force - not, IMO, intended to stand forever as a carte blanche.  Subsequent resolutions, IMO, clearly terminate that authority.  No other reading makes sense to me.  Not to mention, of course, that Kofi Annan was on TV all the time telling the world that the UN has not authorized force in Iraq.

This is twisted indeed.  Now, international law isn't exactly my field of expertise, so I am convincable to the contrary, but the relatively plain reading of the documents, combined with the timeline of events, turns Bush's theory into essentially "nyah nyah - you told me I could invade 12 years ago, and you can't take it back now!  Nyah nyah!!"

I remain unconvinced that the US had any meaningful UN "authority" to invade Iraq in 1993.