Oversimplication? Maybe. But saying the UN loves the US is more inaccurate that saying it loves the US.
The UN doesn't love the US. It depends fo the US and therefore fears to stand up to America. All members pay a sum to finance the work of the UN. The US-governement however doesn't want to understand the prinicpalce of a surpra-nation organisation and has the cynical reflex to block the budget when something is held against them (justified or not). That is the reason rthe UN fails to act against crimes of the USA and it's alies as Israel.
How bad could sanctions have been, if Halliburton was selling technology to Iraq? You don't think Dick Cheney would have done something WRONG, DO you?
There's a hint in the local paper that the FBI is looking more closely at a possible Atta-Iraq connection. This might change everything. Yes, I understand any cynicism, any thought that Bush is looking for a justification here. At this point, as much as I distrust the Bushies, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If for no other reason that Bush should and might possibly would be impeached if he forced the FBI to file a false report in order to justify an invasion of Iraq. I don't think they'd do that. Or should I say, I don't think they'd do that. If Iraq was, in fact, involved in Sept 11, we have every right, if not obligation, to go after them. Plus, it makes our attack much, much easier to sell internationally.
A few points: According to former Marine and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Iraq is basically disarmed. Even assuming that they have biological agents and nuclear warheads, the fact that Iraq lacks a delivery system makes all that pretty useless. It's like having bullets but no gun. And Iraq almost certainly doesn't have a delivery system (or one of any significance) because if it did, Israel and the United States should be jumping up and down about it all the TESTING that would have to be done in order for Hussein to properly calibrate them. And long range missile tests aren't easy to hide with recon planes all over the place and satellites up above. Let's also set one other thing straight: UN weapons inspectors were ORDERED out of Iraq by the United States just prior to Operation Desert Fox in 1999. At the same time, UN Humanitarian workers were left in the country and were not given the same orders to evacuate. The weapons inspectors were NOT, as some point out, thrown out by Saddam Hussein prior to the operation. This is according to two UN weapons inspectors and the leader of the humanitarian effort. The US government makes it seem like Hussein has mountains and mountains of weapons stored EVERYWHERE. Some were even suggesting that the minarets were really missile silos. Technically speaking, Iraq would have to have technology even beyond the capabilities of the US to hide something as big as a missile/rocket inside a minaret built out of stone and still make use of it as a long range missile platform. Saying that the US shouldn't attack Iraq doesn't mean that one sympathizes with Saddam Hussein. I think everyone outside of Sadam Hussein's top brass and closest aides and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups agrees that he is a sack of s***. But let's not forget that the US was the one who put him up to the task of bombing the s*** out of Iran in the 1980's in a nice, long, bloody war by giving him lots of the weapons and technology the US alleges he has. And while we're on the topic of Iran, let's also not forget that the US of A was the force that kept the nefarious Shah Reza Palhavi in power in Iran, thanks to a 1950's coup by the CIA to remove Mossadegh (with whom the US had a mutual distrust) from power. Palhavi was the quintessential Pinochet of the country, and his seizure of power only galvanized the Iranian Revolution. One other question: if the US is so gung-ho about allowing weapons inspectors into other countries, then why won't it allow it's own stockpile of weapons to be inspected (see: Iran Contra Affair; pre-Islamic Revolution Iran; Iran-Iraq War; Israel; Afghanistan)
It's quite a bit too late for that. The most important nations w/r/t an invasion of Iraq hate the idea and are likely to believe that evidence of an Iraq-Atta plot are a fabrication. If there was a really strong paper trail, it would have come out months ago.
It's interesting that the Iraqi connections to Bin Laden were quashed by the government. If you recall, there were also lots of rumors about Iraq and the Murrah building that was (suposedly) destroyed by McVeigh. The feds also put down those rumors, blew up the remains of the building before any tests could be done, and were pretty quick about executing McVeigh. I don't know if it means anything, but if we wanted to trump up something to make invading Iraq more moral, we have plenty of chances to do it.