(THE DAILY CALLER) -- The White House is downplaying the role of the United Nations in any potential strike against Syrian weapons, even though it also says U.S. intervention is justified by an international norm against the use of chemical weapons.
The anti-U.N. stance stands in sharp contrast to the policy maintained by President George H. Bush, who sought and won U.N. and congressional approval prior to removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991.
Similarly, President George W. Bush sought and won a favorable U.N. resolution against Iraq in 2002, titled U.N. Security Resolution 1441. Bush said that resolution endorsed action against Iraq’s government for not fully disarming itself of chemical weapons following the 1991 war.
George W. Bush also got congressional approval prior to forcefully removing Iraq’s dictatorial government in 2003.
In 2008, Obama ran for the presidency while saying U.S. government should work closely with the United Nations.
Since then, he has repeatedly endorsed a major role for the U.N. “If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it,” Obama said in a CNN interview broadcast Aug. 23.
Monday, Carney downplayed any talk of a role for the United Nations in shaping or approving Obama’s possible decision to strike Syrian forces.
If Obama says the U.N. should have a role, he would effectively give a veto opportunity to Russia and China, both of which have veto power on the U.N.’s Supreme Council. Continue reading via The Daily Caller...