One of the inconvenient truths liberals and progressive-minded Obama supporters seem to be overlooking is the 2001 and 2002 Authorization’s for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), that President Obama is now using to justify his 2014 attacks inside Syria, was a direct result of President George W Bush going to congress and asking for authorization (ie. a vote) prior to launching attacks on terror entities.
Despite the anxiety it produces for Democrats the fact remains. George W Bush never went to war, or used the military as an offensive weapon, without consulting with congress and seeking approval. Regardless of opinion, no amount of spin can remove this obvious fact.
When Obama uses the military for his versions of “the war on terror” he does not consult with congress.
President Obama used the U.N. to authorize his military campaign in Libya, and never did consult congress even after the legally required 30 day timeline of the War Powers Act. And for Syria, well, President Obama is relying on the Bush AUMF’s without further consult.
For this reason we find ourselves in agreement with the New York Times.

Wrong Turn on Syria: No Convincing Plan – President Obama has put America at the center of a widening war by expanding into Syria airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS and ISIL. He has done this without allowing the public debate that needs to take place before this nation enters another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East.

He says he has justification for taking military action against the Islamic State and Khorasan, another militant group. But his assertions have not been tested or examined by the people’s representatives in Congress. How are Americans to know whether they have the information to make any judgment on the wisdom of his actions?

There isn’t a full picture — because Mr. Obama has not provided one — of how this bombing campaign will degrade the extremist groups without unleashing unforeseen consequences in a violent and volatile region. In the absence of public understanding or discussion and a coherent plan, the strikes in Syria were a bad decision.

Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not.

He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.

The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.  [*snip* even this only pertains to Iraq, not Syria.. /ed]

Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.

[…] The military action early Tuesday was quite different from what Mr. Obama explained in a televised speech on Sept. 10. For months the administration has focused on the ISIS threat, yet these strikes also targeted Khorasan, a group the government says is linked to Al Qaeda and engaged in “active plotting that posed an imminent threat to the United States and potentially our allies.”

It is puzzling that Mr. Obama would address the nation on a terrorist threat and not mention the group that officials now say poses an imminent threat to the United States, which ISIS does not. They say they kept details about Khorasan secret so the group would not know it was being tracked. But past threats, including Osama bin Laden, were discussed openly even as they were tracked.

These incongruities — two enemies now, instead of one — call into question whatever sense of purpose and planning the administration hopes to project. Mr. Obama has said airstrikes alone are not enough, and native ground troops in both Iraq and Syria will be relied on after the bombings. But it will be months before Americans can turn the mainstream opposition into a fighting force; in Iraq, after six weeks of American airstrikes, Iraqi Army troops have scarcely budged ISIS from its strongholds.

Finally, there is the question of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. (read more)

The reality is that this “Khorasan” group is a total head fake, a ruse and a guise.
Obama needed the cover of attacking “al-Qaeda”, to add legality to his preferred method of working around congress.
Heck, President Obama has NEVER used the name before, not even once.  Khorasan, an admitted group of only around 50 people, was on the cusp of carrying out an attack?  Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket…. *cough*, bull pucky.  How convenient, eh?
The 2001 and 2002 AUMF was directly written to allow authorization for targeting of al-Qaeda, and their affiliates.   Without using the guise of attacking al-Qaeda the legality of the AUMF did not exist.    Remember, this is Denis “the fixer” McDonough at work here – and this is how McDonough works, skirting law is his specialty.
President Obama gave a politically worded justification speech to the nation in Prime-Time announcing and outlining everything about ISIS.  Then turns around and never once mentions ISIS in his framework to congressional leadership.

You’ll note the parentheses around (including the authority to carry out Public Law 107-40), that specific citation is to the 2002 AUMF -requested by George Bush and passed by congress- granting authorization for military engagement against “al-Qaeda and the Taliban”.
But what is more interesting is that National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, had specifically asked Speaker Boehner to repeal this law in July, (less than two months ago) saying the “2002 AUMF is no longer used for any US government activities and the Administration fully supports it’s repeal“.   See:


So two months ago the 2002 AUMF not only was a non issue, but the White House was specifically saying it was “outdated” and they were not going to use it, ever again.
Yet this exact AUMF (107-243) which was never going to be used/needed, is the specific construct of the current legal authority the White House now claims.
Anyone else seeing the conflict?
Final thoughts.   Connect all of these dots and you can clearly see President Obama has no intentions of attacking authentic Sunni Islam, or ISIS.  He is no more predisposed to such a goal than his BFF, Turkey’s Recep Erdogan.
A simple question outlines the brutally obvious reality.
If ridding the world of ISIS is such an Obama goal, then why would he not first seek to decimate ISIS in Iraq, a place for which he needs no further authorization.   He could, if he chose, bomb them day and night destroying their entire military apparatus; and then, once successful, begin following them toward and into Syria.
ISIS is a danger in Iraq at a larger scale than currently in Syria.   So why no tomahawks around all of these well known ISIS battalions there?
There’s your answer.