Full text of the US/UK draft 'second resolution'
"The security council...Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441 (2002), Decides to remain seized of the matter."

'Decides to remain seized of the matter'? In no way does this authorise war. This strikes me as a remarkably soft resolution, a sign of the desperation of the UK in particular to get something, anything passed by the Security Council. It is so unremarkable that it will indeed prove difficult for members to vote against it or to veto it. However they could (and should) abstain, in order to deny the US and the UK the legitimacy of the UN that they desperately seek.

Full text of the US/UK draft 'second resolution'
"The security council...Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441 (2002), Decides to remain seized of the matter."

'Decides to remain seized of the matter'? In no way does this authorise war. This strikes me as a remarkably soft resolution, a sign of the desperation of the UK in particular to get something, anything passed by the Security Council. It is so unremarkable that it will indeed prove difficult for members to vote against it or to veto it. However they could (and should) abstain, in order to deny the US and the UK the legitimacy of the UN that they desperately seek.