Should Obama get approval from lawmakers to carry out attacks against the Islamic State?

“In his speech Wednesday night, President Barack Obama said he would “welcome congressional support” for his expanded-but-limited plan to destroy ISIS, the terror organization wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria. But Obama conspicuously did not say he would ask lawmakers to vote on whether to approve this military action. The White House insists that a previous congressional authorization approving military action against Al Qaeda and its affiliates allows Obama to go forward without seeking another explicit green light from Capitol Hill,” writes Erika Eichelberger in (Mother Jones)

Today’s Question: Should Obama get approval from lawmakers to carry out attacks against the Islamic State?

  • kevins

    I’m not sure he needs it, but he certainly should ask them to make their votes public and on the record…that info is always handy when the next election rolls around.

  • PaulJ

    Sometimes it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.

    • Gary F

      Would that have been OK for Bush? Just checking, cuz Obama is different, right?

      • PaulJ

        I don’t see why B-rock would have any different worth than 2 in the Bush.

        • JQP

          Bush “the doose”

  • Sue de Nim

    Since the Islamic State is not an al Qaeda affiliate (indeed, they’re so bad that al Qaeda’s leadership repudiates them), it’s not clear to me that the previous authorization for military action applies to them, strictly speaking.

    • Observe

      Even if it were the same force, the declared end of the war in Iraq & Afghanistan and the different boarders would seem to require a new war resolution.

  • Juan

    bombing a sovereign nation (Syria) should is an act of war – congress should have some say in this. Senator Obama would have insisted on this. Arming “good rebels” never work well.

  • Bill

    Obama is the Commander and Chief and Congress has the power to declare war. Since ISIS/ISIL or whatever you want to call them, has not been deemed an imminent threat to the US by DHS Congress should make the decision to declare war. Since we can’t afford war, Congress should not declare war, since they are also responsible for the US budget.

  • Rich in Duluth

    No, although I agree with others, here, that he may not need approval.

    Cut off the flow of arms and money to these people. Use diplomacy to enlarge the “coalition” to isolate ISIS/ISIL and the countries supplying them. Stop using bombs to make peace.

  • JQP

    in regard to the US political system, won’t matter either way. get it or don’t.
    if the president waits for congress and the GOP House to grant it – they will later complain about what he did with that authority.
    if he waits and congress but the GOP house doesn’t grant it – they’ll complain because he’s not doing anything.
    If he acts on his own without congressional action… they’ll complain because he didn’t wait for them.

    In our political system… the “act of complaining” is what counts because media drives our public sentiment and not simple data and individual thoughtful reflection.

  • Gary F

    No, Obama is The One, king, The Secular Savior, Hope and Change, The Nobel Peace Prize winner, AND a constitutional lawyer.

  • Pearly


  • Observe

    The constitutional must be strengthened not weakened with yet another post WWII executive action. Allow this and future presidents will be able to do even more without Congress. There is good reason to require Congress to declare war. Congressional hawks want to have the war without having to take responsibility. The rest are sheep, hawk-like political wind vanes. Haven’t heard any opposition from the left in Congress, have heard an avalanche of protest from New York Times readers. All these Polls quoted by the Press saying Americans want action on this just isn’t credible to me. Smells of once again the elite manipulating the public through the press. Oh, and thank you Tea Party anti-war block.