Pelosi, Obama et al claim the 2003 AUMF for Iraq were ill-advised at best and established under false pretenses at best but now they claim these AUMFs are still in effect and legally legitimate.

Up until now, this is a mess caused by the Bush Administrations lies.

The first bomb Obama drops on Iraq will redefine the aftermath as his.

political cover. Here is Obama -- Nobel Peace Prize Laureate -- declaring he can do what he wants unilaterally in Syria, saying he can act without a new AUMF for Iraq and actually starting a war in Libya. This makes no political sense. If it's so damned important for US national security, or even cynical interests, GET CONGRESS TO ****ING SIGN-OFF ON IT!

This is going to haunt us for generations after Obama has left office.

They did?

The war was illegal.

Still, is that what matters? Are you implying that if Congress gave Obama "political cover" it would be OK for him to act?

AUMFs were not legitimate as they were based on falsehoods. However, they still provided political cover. There is a tremendous gulf between legitimate and politically expedient.

If Obama acts he will be assuming Bush's every mistake. If he does so unilaterally he won't even have political cover to spread the blame. It will be his debacle and his alone. Granted he will be going to confront ISIS rather than under the false pretext of WMDs but that will be his only saving grace, though I doubt that will suffice.

Might I add, if the President does act unilaterally the War Powers Resolution is effectively dead.

They were voted by Congress and signed by the then president. President Obama did NOT say he thought that they were a good idea. I trust Mr Obama not to misuse that authority a LOT more than I ever trusted Mr Bush!!

but an act of Congress is not a contract.

A person/body cannot give legitimate consent when they have been misled.

I think congress would have to pass a new law withdrawing that authorization and that would have to be signed by the president. Which, I might add, sounds like a very good idea to me.

the last few congresses have truly represented the people at all. I really like when he points out to them how the rules they have set in place are inconceived. The logical step would be to get themselves in session and work on the nation's business as it relates to Iraq, but they won't. They won't make any hard decisions. It's an election year and incumbents really love their jobs.

"Oh yes, you do!"

Then they would have to vote on it.

At least that would be more honest.

What reporters were in that meeting?

I am skeptical, i will admit.