A week after Condoleezza Rice defended the policies of George W. Bush in a speech in Thousand Oaks,  a British investigation into the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq determined that the U.S. desired to invade Iraq prior to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and revealed that the island nation dismissed the idea as having no basis in law.

The notion that the United States was dissatisfied with Saddam Hussein’s regime should come as no surprise to any government or person that was paying attention to Iraq’s flagrant violations of the cease-fire that halted combat operations in the first Gulf War, Iraq’s attempts to shoot down lawful American aircraft patrols notwithstanding.

A common refrain of those opposed to the American invasion of the rogue nation is that it was illegal in the eyes of international law. But a cursory examination of U.N. resolutions tells otherwise.

The first Gulf War never “ended”—it was held in limbo provided that Iraq followed the many provisions of several laws passed by the United Nations. One such resolution was 687, which was adopted on April 3, 1991 and set the main terms of the ceasefire. It stated that Iraq could not possess weapons of mass destruction or long-range missiles, and must compensate Kuwait for widespread looting perpetrated by Iraqi soldiers. Furthermore, it stated:

False statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations.

As we all know, over the next decade Iraq provoked the international community and flagrantly violated the above paragraph. It led weapons inspectors on wild goose chases and lied about its weapons stockpiles. And Kuwait never got its money. According to the New York Times:

Iraqi intelligence agents successfully spied on United Nations weapons inspectors this year and last, learning in advance of the team's targets and moving swiftly to hide suspected weapons caches, United States military and intelligence officials said today.

Ultimately, this led to Bill Clinton’s decision to bomb Iraq. If there was a conspiracy to lie about the causes to invade Iraq in 2003, as some allege, certainly Bill Clinton and the New York Times would have been in on it.

George W. Bush merely continued Clinton’s policies. Once public support was on his side after 9/11, he decided to act—and just to be extremely obvious that the invasion would be legal, he approached the U.N. It was unnecessary as a matter of law, but it was necessary as far as politics were concerned.

As a result, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, which offered Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.”

“If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation,” U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said, “this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to…enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.”

Resolution 1441 was unnecessary but served to remind Iraq’s appeasers that the decade-old Resolution 687 was still in effect and being repeatedly violated. Even if 1441 never existed, the United States had legal justification to renew combat operations against Iraq.