Which is worse for PR, fighting a war with an entirely legal pretext and finding the WMD, or going "through channels" asking for redundant permission that only legitimizes the most corrupt governance on earth while your principal justification disappears?
I'll take my answer on the air. ;-)
That said, I honestly believe that while WMD acquisition was certainly one of the reasons given for our invasion, the broader reason was simply to take out the politically weakest leader in the region in order to gain long term on the ground strategic advantage in the heart of "terrorland."
This is an administration that is trying a new method of "peacemaking." Rather than the strong arm marathon negotiations favored by his predecessor, the President is looking to modernize and reshape the ME.
That is a pretty clear goal, although, perhaps a recklessly ambitious one. We will not know for many years. All I know is the last person who was "recklessly ambitious" called for a certain wall to come down and it did. Amazingly enough.
Therefore, I believe that calculations were made for short term pain in lieu of long term gain. What we see through the narrow eye of the media, and what is really happening may be very different. My fondest hope is that UN will be entirely discredited in this debacle. But that is probably too much to hope for, and they will muddle away being useful idiots for the foreseeable future.
BTW, I have complimentary tinfoil available from our screener if you stay on the line. Thanks for the call.
Ok, our next caller..... (Wanders off to weird Krameresque Michael Douglas set) ; )