There's an interesting article from the UK linked to on Huffingtonpost.com today. A UK govt employee has released documents that he was previously forced to keep hidden. These documents basically state the govt had no proof of WMD when the authorized the Iraqi invasion. And many stated that what would happen should Saddam be removed is what is happening today. But those naysayers were 100% ignored.

>>>>>I don't think they will be impressed. Sadam never was impressed by the threats of the US. I don't see Iran being impressed by the US.
>>>>
>>>>Of course not. He had France, German and others that were in bed with him.
>>>>I said if all the good powers of the world were united not just the United States.
>>>
>>>Along with being beneficiaries of the OilForFood program, Germany knew that the Chalabi-cousin informant Curveball was a nutjob and a known fabricator. And the Germans told us that before the war. And the Germans tell us that the administration misstated Curveball's fabrications on top of that. They couldnt believe that Bush referenced the curveball material in the SOTU speech and in Powells speech, and that they kept on doing so. And the French were operating the Niger uranium mines that the forgeries referenced, with one of the mines being flooded. Add to that the British weighing in with 'the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy' and 'the case was thin... Saddam was not threatening his neighbours'. Considering that, I think getting the involvement of even one of those three countries to participate in going into Iraq is doing pretty good.
>>
>>Which only goes to show that Prime Minister Blair saw it more fruitful to be a lap dog (poodle in the U.K.) to President Bush than doing his own (sensible) thing. And in the end he has reaped NIL from the President except more White House visits and a few extra taps on the shoulder.
>
>To me, an interesting aspect of UK involvement was how the UK attorney general Goldsmith dragged his feet in getting around to providing Blair with an opinion as to the legality of going into Iraq. On March 11th, a UK Army honcho demanded a statement stating that the troops would be acting legally. After the US & the UK realized they werent going to get another resolution, Goldsmith told parliament on March 17th that going into Iraq was legal. And 2 days later the war started. But 10 days prior, on March 10th, Goldsmith had written a memo to Blair that read "I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force." An assistant atty general in his office resigned in protest after he ruled. And, according to UK newspapers, a May 2006 release of documents from his office shows that he came around after discussions with US representatives and others.