Before and during the latest Iraqi conflict, opponents of our action in Iraq made much about the lack of UN support for what we were doing, suggesting that our action lacked legitimacy because of the lack of support of key nations like France, Germany, Russia, and China. Newly-disclosed documents (likely reliable, as I see no link to Dan Rather) report:
Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.

And...
Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Additionally, Iraq targeted Russian and Chinese leaders for bribery. Can anyone now make the case that we should have waited patiently for a UN approval that clearly was never going to happen? Critics often chanted "No war for oil", implying our motives were all about obtaining cheap oil. The more accurate interpretation of that chant would be for some of our so-called European allies, who evidently were operating under a "No war, for oil" policy.

Furthermore, critics continue to harp on the fact no WMDs have been found. This same report, however, states that as soon as the UN removed sanctions, Hussein was going to resume procurement and production of WMDs.

Clearly, two of the main arguments of opponents of our intervention in Iraq have been shown to be wrong. First, the UN couldn't and shouldn't have been trusted to be an impartial arbiter as to whether the US should take action in Iraq. Secondly, the lack of found WMDs by no means indicates Saddam was harmless. He clearly was going to pursue WMDs as soon as he thought possible.

Let's imagine (shudder) that John Kerry had been president. I believe he might (emphasize, might) have gone into Afghanistan, although he might have followed President Clinton's lead and tried lobbing some cruise missiles instead of committing ground forces. In Iraq, I can only conclude from Kerry's statements that he would have patiently waited for UN approval that would never have come, due to Saddam's bribery of 3 of the 5 Security Council countries. Since it appears Saddam either destroyed his WMDs or moved them out of the country, the UN would have lifted sanctions and Saddam would have restarted his program of WMD development and acquisition. In addition, his torture of his own citizens and support of terrorists would have continued.