"The president can only act unilaterally in 'instances of self-defense...'"
Barack Obama is again realizing that being President of the United States is much more difficult that being a candidate for President of the United States. Case in point: when then-Candidate Obama initially ran for president during the 2008 election, he made a number of statements regarding foreign policy and military intervention that he has directly contradicted in recent days, as reported by Fox News in separate articles on Aug. 26, 2013; The Daily Caller on Aug. 27, 2013; as well as The American Spectator magazine on Aug. 29, 2013.
Obama made a point of stating in 2007 that any given American president simply 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.”
To further hammer his point home, then Senator/Candidate Obama added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”
The American Spectator cites a 2007 New York Times interview in which the Illinois Senator made a none-too-subtle swipe at President George W. Bush, but made it abundantly clear as well as anti-prophetic how his is future overall dealings with Syrian leaders:
I would meet directly with Syrian leaders.
We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy in which a whole host of issues are on the table…but right now the only incentive that exists is our president suggesting that if you do what we tell you, we may not blow you up.
In what Fox News contributor Anne Bayefsky described as Gulliver demanding to be tied down, on September 2009 from the podium of the U.N. General Assembly, Obama delivered his bold and confident announcement to the world body:
We've re-engaged the United Nations… We have sought…a new era of engagement with the world.
The openly globalist Obama went on to state that he would “begin a new chapter of international cooperation” as well as vowing “we will work with the U.N.”
With both the Russians and the Chinese being permanent members of the UN Security Council, they've torpedoed every move via their veto authority every time a mandate for action against the Assad regime has been introduced.
That trend doesn't seem to change course any time soon.
Nevertheless, while appearing on CNN last week, Obama hedged his bets on launching an attack on Syria without the express consent and permission of the United Nations:
If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it…