This column in the Washington Post this morning is a bit skewed.
Written by Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway it notes that the last of the UN’s resolutions expire in January 09 making the “war illegal” at that time.
How – well read this.
Despite protestations to the contrary, Congress clearly understood that it was authorizing the president to intervene militarily when it passed its joint resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in October 2002. But it did not give him a blank check. It allowed for the use of force only under two conditions.
The first has long since lapsed. It permitted the president to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” This threat came to an end with the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s government. It makes no sense to say that it continues today, or that our “national security” is “threatened by” the Iraqi government headed by Nouri al-Maliki.
Instead, U.S. military intervention is authorized under the second prong of the 2002 resolution. This authorizes the president to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” This has allowed the Bush administration to satisfy American law by obtaining a series of resolutions authorizing the United States to serve as the head of the multinational force in Iraq.
I didn’t read much farther than this because
1. We’re not at war with Iraq any longer and haven’t been for years!!!
2. Makes this not the same “war”. It’s still a war on terror, but certainly not a war against Iraq authorized by congress by one of the two reasons stated above. (in bold)
Who are these guys and where have they been. The Iraqi government continues to request American presence in Iraq! The Iraqi government requested air support the other day in Basra. We’re there to help. We’re sure not at war with the good folks of Iraq.