Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Charlie Savage did the country a great service back in 2007 when he got all major presidential candidates to answer a questionnaire probing their views on executive power.
Today, the Wall Street Journal covers the controversy on the Hill over President Obama’s unilateral decision to order a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation:
A senior administration official said that the 2007 comment envisioned “an invasion like we saw in Iraq. A mission of this kind, which is time-limited, well-defined, and discrete, clearly falls within the President’s constitutional authority.”
Uh, no. If you look it up, this was the question candidate Obama answered:
He wasn’t asked about “an invasion.” He was asked about airstrikes on Iran, in a situation, as framed by Savage, that looks a lot more “time-limited, well-defined, and discrete” than the massively uncertain adventure the president has just unilaterally committed us to–and one that at least involves a hypothetical threat to US interests.
In that case, candidate Obama answered–correctly–that he would not have constitutional authority to launch an attack without congressional authorization. President Obama owes the country a better explanation than the one his advisor offered the Journal. And he’ll have to be a heck of a lawyer to come up with one.
