Remember, 678 granted the authority to use "all necessary means" to enforce 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions. Those subsequent relevant resolutions included 687 (as well as the later ones up to and including 1441, which stated that Iraq was in material breach of 687). As far as who gets to decide what constitutes "all necessary means", that determination has historically been left to those who are actually executing the military operations. Under established international law, authorizing "all necessary means" covers the use of force up to and including nuclear weapons. Essentially, it was a blank check of authority to coalition forces cooperating with Kuwait to do whatever they felt they had to do to enforce 660, 687, and later resolutions. And the actions of the administration circa August 2002 - March 20, 2003 does not strike you as violating the spirit and intent of those resolutions? Blank checks of authority cashed 12 years afterward to undertake actions not necessary at any point in the original conflict -- and done with a retroactive claim that acts of previous administrations were enough and so few to no preliminary measures were required, including eventually the newly ongoing efforts of weapons inspectors -- strikes me as using the law to one's own purposes. If this was the law itself within a given nation it would be enough grounds for a legal argument for a Supreme Court case up until the point the UN offered its additional authorization for the 2003 invasion... after said invasion was completed.