In a 2008 interview with The Boston Globe, Obama said, "The President [sic] does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." So, according to the professor/senior lecturer the before a president can "unilaterally authorize a military attack" the country must be faced with "an actual or imminent threat."
But Obama is prepared to, "authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the [United States]." We know there is no "actual or imminent threat" because Obama says so. On September 9, 2013, he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Assad "doesn't have a credible means to threaten the United States." He was even more direct with Fox News's Chris Wallace; telling him, Assad's "threat [is] not direct and imminent to the United States[.]" But he went to Congress anyway despite, in the president's words, "me believing I have the authority to take, uh, action." (As a matter of grammar our highly educated president should have said, "despite my believing . . . .")
So, where does he get this authority? The Constitution hasn't changed since 2008 when the president lacked this authority. It's not enough to say, "presidents have always claimed this power." Why? Because when Obama snookered citizens into voting for him, he promised to be different than Geo. W. Bush. He was a cut above all the rest! Obama let his mouth overload his behind when he started tough talk about red-lines and the consequences of crossing them. Obama's problem has been and remains that he thinks he's special, but he's not. And Putin and Assad are about to make a fool of him and this country.
