In 2007, Senator Barack Obama made remarks about the War Powers Act and the war in Iraq. He blamed Congress for giving the president the power to wage war that he later abused.
“The American people weren’t just failed by a president, they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts… And, most of all by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that voted to give the president the power to wage war that he uses to this day. Without that vote, there would be no war.”
Advertisement - story continues below
But that was back in 2007.
Now Obama sees the 2002 Iraq War Resolution as a legal basis for airstrikes in Syria.
The New York Times reported, via Instapundit:
The White House believes that Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war — and not just the 2001 authorization to fight Al Qaeda — provides a legal justification for President Obama’s air campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Obama administration said Friday.
TRENDING: BREAKING: Tainted DC Jury Reaches Decision - Finds Stewart Rhodes GUILTY of Garbage "Seditious Conspiracy" Charges - Government Refused to Expose Their Operatives Who Were the Only Ones Who Called for Violence
The White House has not issued a formal analysis of its legal thinking, but the disclosure adds to an evolving public understanding of its theory about the basis for the strikes against ISIS.
When the bombing began in August, Mr. Obama’s letters to Congress cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said he already had legal authority for the campaign, but would welcome specific congressional approval, too, and administration officials for the first time cited the 2001 authorization to use military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks for the campaign.