::::::::
Looks like the New York Times editorial board has been listening to William Kristol, their latest, clueless columnist. Kristol believes that everything George Bush does is legal, as long as it fits the neocon agenda. That the invasion of Iraq was legal and is a great success. That's to be expected. These guys are Republicans and Republicans are consistent in supporting one another in their delusional beliefs.
As near as I can make out, the neocon agenda is that neocon Republicans should rule the world, by force, preferably. Kinda like Mike Huckabee wants himself and God to rule the United States. Maybe the world, later.
Bush's war on Iraq has resulted in several hundred thousand Iraqis killed, 4000 US soldiers killed, continuing death and destruction, a cost of possibly two trillion dollars, a country destroyed. Calling that a success is the height of dementia. Calling that a success is truly insane. Certifiable.
The editorial refers to a United Nations resolution as "the current international legal basis for the American military presence in Iraq."
I read through all the UN resolutions I could find and I could not find one that gives George Bush the right to wage unprovoked, aggressive war on Iraq. In fact, the UN Charter, itself, provides for exactly the opposite.
Even if there were such a resolution, it would not be valid, it would be in violation of the UN Charter. Article 39 specifically mentions the illegal act of waging aggressive war. Articles 41 and 42 provide for member nations to provide military force to prevent the waging of agressive war by any nation that does so. Any nation includes the United States of George Bush and William Kristol.
The UN did not abide by their own charter when George Bush waged aggressive war on Iraq, much to William Kristol's delight. The UN and Kristol studiously looked the other way and pretended that those articles weren't there. But, they were, and they still are. And George Bush's United States is still in violation of those articles and will be as long as there are US soldiers in Iraq and Bush continues his going on five year aggressive war against Iraq.
Contrary to what the New York Times and William Kristol think, there can be no UN resolution that allows the waging of unprovoked, aggressive war by George Bush, and because of that there can be no legal basis for the American military presence in Iraq. The UN Charter says so even if the UN doesn't uphold their own charter.
