Mr. Blix argued, as France did, that the Security Council “owned” the resolution 1441 as a collective.

As I said (see previous post), I think Blix is wrong. 1441 stated that if Iraq did not comply with all relevant resolutions, then there would be serious consequences. As 688 was one of the relevant resolutions and America was able to determine when they were in violation of that, it follows from this that America would be able to determine that Iraq was in violation of 1441. Blix may think that “ownership” of the resolutions should rest with the entire Security Council, but as the old saying goes, and ought is not an is.

Needless to say, a second resolution was not needed to put a legal stamp on the war.  However, the US decided to pursue one anyway because Blair thought he needed it for political reasons.  This was a huge mistake and typical of the Bushies gross diplomatic bungling in the lead up to the war.  As Niall Ferguson put it, "by pitching for a second resolution ..., the Bush administration handed the French government a big, baguette like stick with which to beat the United States over the head."  Unbeknownst to Ferguson, the French had singled to the US and Britain that they were not going to continue the debate over the "ownership" of 1441 and were let the US and Britain go on its merry conquering way, but for political reasons the two pursued one anyway.  As a result France was not able to back down and had no choice to beat the US over the head as it were.    

Now, just for the record, let me say this. I hope people’s opinion of the war does not rest on whether they think it was legal.