Michael Tennant in The New American, republished on the Constitution Party national website:
What a difference an election makes. The man who just singlehandedly committed the United States to war against Libya, President Barack Obama, told the Boston Globe in 2007:
The President 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.
In this Obama was absolutely correct. What, then, explains his reversal? Three possibilities exist: (1) he never believed that the Constitution constrains the President from initiating war but said he did in order to get elected; (2) he believed it in 2007 but changed his mind upon taking office; or (3) he believed it in 2007 and still believes it but thinks he can get away with violating his oath of office because Congress is too timid to put the brakes on the mission now that it is under way. None of these puts the President in a particularly good light.
Obama is not the only member of his administration to have previously opposed presidential war-making. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was also questioned by the Globe when she was running for President and had this to say:
The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization.