Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The basic reason I believe that is does is because the cease-fire was a stoppage of the war using conditions - conditions Saddam accepted but didn't follow. Therefore - the war is "un-ceased" and the rules of engagement used previously are back in play unless specifically overruled(which they were not).
To each his own opinion though.
CkG
Wasn't the cease-fire agreement between the UN and Iraq? How is it that the US got to decide it was time to terminate the cease-fire? I do suppose based on your argument, that if the UN did terminate the cease-fire, that previous provisions to use "any means necessary" return to being in effect.
But the UN did not terminate the cease-fire, so where does that leave us? Back to no legal basis in the resolutions.
Edit:
Just for reference, CAD is right in that this was part of the President's stated justfication
Text of Bush's proposed congressional resolution