Washington ? President Bush earned praise from both sides of the political spectrum on Friday, but for different reasons: Some said the U.N. Security Council’s approval of his Iraq resolution made war more likely; others that it made it less.

Indeed, both those for and against war with Iraq saw the U.N. vote as validating their approach. Republicans and political conservatives said it laid the ground for their “zero tolerance” approach to Saddam Hussein’s program to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Democrats and liberals said the new resolution was a victory for their insistence that the United States not go it alone, but work through diplomacy and the United Nations.

The result is that whether or not the U.N. resolution ever disarms Iraq, it has :quot; at least temporarily :quot; disarmed the potential opposition.

“By going through the United Nations, we have gained critical international support if it becomes necessary to use force to disarm Saddam,” said Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, a Democrat who voted only reluctantly for a congressional authorization of use of force against Iraq. “This demonstrates the wisdom of working with the international community, as many of us in Congress had urged the administration to do.”

Similar views were expressed on the Republican side.

“Some of us have been arguing for the last several months that this is exactly the way we should go,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. “It gives us the moral argument if we do decide to use force.”

Bush administration officials insist the U.N. resolution does not “handcuff” the United States. But others disagreed, saying it still imposed significant barriers to the use of force.

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who set off a firestorm of criticism by visiting Iraq last month, said the White House view was “mistaken.”

“The president can always turn on the spin machine and say we’re going to war, but that would not be in compliance with this resolution,” McDermott said. “I think this sets the stage for the peaceful disarmament of Iraq.”