I did read it. And I posted it because you had said that there was no legal basis for the invasion. The resolution passed unanimously, and warned Iraq there would be repercussions if they were not in compliance with it or previous resolutions. They decided to ignore it, so.......
Again, the resolution explicitly said how a breach would be handled. It would go back to the UNSC for further consideration (UNSCR 1441, S.12) . It did not authorize unilateral invasion. No UNSCR did. Authorization for limited military force would likely have been the next step as 1441 very much read as a ‘final warning’, but it didn’t happen. As you’re quoting UNSC for use of force authorizations, I take it from that that you accept that to be the governing legal mechanism.
And don’t forget, the WMD pretext was a lie. The administration picked and chose how to present unreliable intelligence so as to drum up support, but in the years since, those on the inside have made it quite clear that the int about WMD didn’t say what the administration said it did.
So, we still find the US and coalition acting unilaterally, outside of the mechanisms they established and supported in the UN that should have been exercised to authorize military force. Even the Secretary General described it as illegal.
I retain my belief that Rumsfeld would have faced legal jeopardy for his part in launching a war of aggression, were the US not functionally immune from such things.