Let's start from the beginning, shall we?
We have 678 is a UN resolution.
During 1441...well,
[link|http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/march0303.html| TalkingPointsMemo ]
On this point I think one thing is extremely clear. The key point of the contention was this matter of 'automaticity.' The Council was willing to sign on to demanding compliance but only if it was in charge of deciding what constituted compliance and non-compliance.
Basically, they were only willing to do it if they got another bite at the apple and got an opportunity to interpret their own words. It wasn't going to be up to DC regime-change scribes to decide what was a 'material breach'. It was going to be up to France, Russia et.al.
So...everyone figured that they're be at least another vote....including America's UN Representative John Negroponte.
There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.
Now, the US also reserved the right to withdraw from the Security Council process.
[link|http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/march0303.html| TalkingPointsMemo ]
The US made it very clear it reserved the right to opt out of the Security Council process altogether -- which it eventually did -- if the Security Council later acted in a way that the US administration did not deem serious. The US has that right. Some folks don't think we have that right. I think we do. I just don't think it was wise in this case.
In any case, declaring a contingent intention to opt out of the UN process is, by definition, not a part of the UN process. If there's anyone who doesn't grasp this, I've got some square pegs and round holes I'd like you to take a stab at.
Now, I'm not saying we're illegal...but saying this is sanctioned by the UN...when we opted out....