"‘Americans are not ready to support an immediate US-led invasion of Iraq at the first sign that Iraq has failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441. Instead, by almost a 2-1 majority, Americans say the US should first go back to the United Nations and get specific authorization for military action.’ What would that be? UN Resolution 1442? For those of you who participated in this poll, the specific authorization for military action is in the current resolution, number 1441, and there are the words 'material breach,' and if there is a material breach then—there's a material breach!—and it's—it's—it's—you know, here goes the green light for military action! It's already in there, my friends."  [Listen to Rush / Documents / Nov 26 UN Resolution]

REALITY: Did UN Resolution 1441, passed by the Security Council on November 8, 2002, authorize military action by the US or any other entity if Iraq committed a "material breach" of the UN’s demands? If you believe Rush, it did indeed. However, if you rely on the resolution itself, or on the words of a key Bush Administration spokesperson, you may reach a different conclusion.

Let’s begin with UN Resolution 1441 itself, the complete text of which can be found at CNN's web site http://asia.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

The sections pertaining to consequences for Iraqi non-cooperation ("material breach") begin at paragraph four:

4. (The Security Council) Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

Therefore, if Iraq violates the dictates and intent of the resolution, what happens? War? Not exactly. According to the resolution, any material breach "will be reported to the (Security) Council for assessment…." And what does that assessment involve? Paragraph 11 and 12:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

So, a material breach of UN Resolution 1441 by Iraq doesn’t authorize military action after all. Clearly, the resolution calls for precisely what the ignorant respondents to the CNN-USA Today poll favored—a return to the UN Security Council for further deliberation ("consider the situation") before any action, military or otherwise, is authorized.

Additional evidence on what UN Resolution 1441 really authorized can be found in the words of White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who was interviewed by NBC’s Tim Russet on Meet the Press on Sunday, November 10, 2002. From the show’s transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: If you read the language of the U.N. resolution, it’s a little murky. It says that if Saddam says no, this will be, "reported to Security Council for assessment," end quote, which the Security Council will convene immediately to consider the situation. Now, the United States had wanted very much the resolution to say, "If he says no, he then faces immediate military consequences." Why this kind of murky language?

MR. CARD: Well, the United States and our allies are prepared to act. The United Nations recognizes the gravity of the situation. They’ve called for Saddam Hussein to disarm. They’ve called for him to comply with all of the resolutions of the United Nations. If he doesn’t comply, he will be in material breach. If he’s in material breach, there will be serious consequences and the United Nations will consider those consequences, but the United States and Great Britain and our allies are prepared to act, and Saddam Hussein has just got to recognize that he should be saying yes and he should comply to every demand that’s on him.

MR. RUSSERT: If the United Nations says, "Well, yes, he didn’t comply, but let’s give him some more time. Let’s look at this a little further. Let’s study this matter some more," the United States has the authority and the ability, in your mind, to act unilaterally.

MR. CARD: We have the authority by what the United States House and Senate did. We have the authority by the president designed to protect and defend the United States of America. We have our allies standing together and we also know the United Nations has said, "This has got to be done. And if you don’t do it, there will be serious consequences."

MR. RUSSERT: But we don’t need further action by the U.N. Security Council to launch a military invasion if we decide that’s necessary?

MR. CARD: The U.N. can meet and discuss, but we don’t need their permission. http://www.msnbc.com/news/833199.asp

The US position, clearly stated by the White House Chief of Staff, is that the authority to invade Iraq comes not from the UN, but from the US Congress. Further, Card admits that if Saddam commits a material breach "there will be serious consequences and the United Nations will consider those consequences." In other words, further discussions, not a green light for military action.

Finally, by concluding that "we don’t need their (UN) permission" to invade Iraq, Andrew Card was admitting that UN Resolution 1441 does not, in fact, give the US permission to begin military action.

Rush Limbaugh: breach bum.