So you're saying the Bush should have never seeked UN approval because they would have just said no anyway?

Well, we do have to recognise that there is a difference between the Kosovo situation (trying to effect peace) and full-scale invasion of a country to effect a regime change. I don't think that Clinton would have invaded Iraq without first trying the UN route either. I suspect that he would have had more success with the UN though, specifically with a second resolution.
Clinton had a lot more UN credibility due to his Israeli-Palestine peace process efforts, and would have stood a greater chance of getting Arab nations onboard. (And this despite his Kosovo operations)
Bush managed to drop that ball completely, and hence the UN process was a lot more difficult than it could have been. Gen. Wesley Clarke stated categorically tonight that there won't be any stability in the region until the Israel/Palestine situation stabilises. Curiously enough, Bush had just publically re-iterated his support for a peace process there merely hours after Tony Boy had left town.

I also really do believe that the motivation distrust I mentioned earlier had a big bearing - and that hurdle would have been less for Clinton.

Very soon after it became clear that GWB had won the 2000 election, my wife (a USAian) stated "Well I guess we'll be invading Iraq soon". Regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or not, it was hardly unexpected, especially after the 'Axis of Evil' speech, and that made the diplomatic path a rocky one.

Ironically, despite the anti-French sentiment that has been expressed in the US, I think that in years to come we'll reflect that the French hard line position combined with Saddam's complete disregard for UN resolutions was the defining factor that killed any chance of a non-military solution, more so than the US/UK military posturing.

However, this doesn't bode well. Already politicians are trying to ensure US corporate interests are promoted in the reconstruction of Iraq. I'm sure that when the Iraqis realise in a few years that the cellphones they've bought won't roam to any of their neighbors countries that they're going to be really happy. When they discover that the motivating factor in the decision was US corporate profits, they're going to be ecstatic. And surely when they realise that one of the added benefits of CDMA is the potential of GPS location ('for emergency calls'), and that echelon is probably watching their every move....
Ok, so maybe the choice of a cellphone system is fairly irrelevant in the scale of things. But I'd bet that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Now I should be clear - it's not obvious to me where the money to pay this will come from. On the one hand, we've got the Administration asking for a supplemental that includes provisions to help reconstuct Iraq, ie US taxpayers.
On the other, we've got politicians saying that the Iraqi oil will pay for reconstruction through an expansion of the UN oil-for-food program. The cynic in me suspects that US taxpayer dollars will be used for reconstruction (including such US-centric provisions) along with the expectation that Iraqi oil pays back the 'loan'. (With interest...)
I really hope I'm wrong. I really can't see how such actions would help US foreign relations in the middle east.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to be unkind earlier, although I'll admit I was being blunt and provocative with my questions.