The Bush administration knew or should have known that their resolution didn't stand a chance.
While Bush's statement might have been on March 6th, one has to in fact go back in time. When Powell went to the UN in February of the same year, his presentation didn't exactly fare well. Most observers weren't impressed. And he was rebuffed time and time again by people such as Hans Blix. The later report of Blix wasn't much help to Powell, criticizing openly the Powell facts.
Blix rebutted some of the arguments proposed by Mr. Powell. Mr. Blix questioned the interpretations of the satellite images put forward by Powell, and stated that alternate interpretations of the satellite images were in fact credible. He also stated that the Iraqis have in fact never received early warning of the inspectors visiting any sites (an allegation made by Mr. Powell during his presentation.) International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammed ElBaradei also said that he didn't believe the Iraqis had a nuclear weapons program, in disagreement with Mr. Powell.
Blix further reported on March 7th to the SC and his report wasn't supportive. Blix's report to the Council did not contain any evidence to support US and British claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or the programs to develop such weapons. IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei also reported on the same day to the Council and said there were no signs that Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. Bush is presumed through intelligence reports to have had advance notice of these reports which basically were his context for his failed promise of March 6th.
There is no evidence that Iraq has mobile biological weapons factories, as was recently alleged by Colin Powell in his February 5 presentation to the UN. "Several inspections have taken place ... in relation to mobile production facilities," Blix said. "No evidence of proscribed activities has so far been found." He further explained that his inspectors had examined numerous mobile facilities and large containers with seed processing equipment.
(http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html; also :
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/07/sprj.irq.main/index.html)
Also we know that the Bush administration was closely monitoring the activities of several member states of the SC, leaving anyone to believe that Bush knew without a doubt that support for any resolution he might submit wouldn't be.
Quote:Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war
Excepts:
The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.
Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.
The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input.
The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.
The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html
So Bush and his pundits can argue whatever, Bush and his administration rushed to war on a variety of pretexts (including the scorching Iraq summer heat) and never intended to follow through on their resolution pledge.
Thus instead of the wide support the first Gulf War garnered under Bush senior, including most of the actual costs being borne by the coalition excluding America's taxpayers, we basically went alone with the Brits and a coalition of the coerced.
The price of the war has been horrendous not only in lives and in billion of dollars. The war has pitted America against much of the world. It's credibility is quite shaken amongst many know allied countries. There was no WMDs. And when the war of Iraq is linked to that of the war on terror, as the recent London incidents show, that war served as a recruiting catalysis for Islamist extremists.
But more, it has basically exposed our political sham: Bush with all his lies and misrepresentations has disenfranchised many who doubt now anything coming from Washington and feel that democracy is only but a sham in the hands of political apparatchiks far more intent on politics than the general welfare of the country. That spells the demise of the American empire, maybe the only true silver lining and legacy of the Bush (Texas Soufflé) presidency.
..... I will never attempt to cross your path again, you are too strong. 
