I will have to say that Kerry, Clinton, et al screwed up big time [View All]

[balanced]

when it comes to the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. The relevant part of the resolution is:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Why would anybody vote to authorize the use of the Armed Forces of the United States to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq", especially when the security council, itself, refused to authorize the use of force? What precedent does this set?

Kerry, Clinton, et al, had better make it clear, and quickly, that the U.S. is not the enforcer for security council resolutions, especially when the security council, itself, will not authorize the use of force. This will mean admitting to a mistake. But so what.