Some points steve and i disagree on. Ill just jump off the cliff here. I actually think we disagree quite vehemently on where the line is between permissible unilateral president ial war making and when the president has to go to congress. Its just that thats not where we are today. The reason why is because you have these two older statutes, the 2001 and the iraq statute and more importantly at the top of the program as the caller said you have no question that congress and the American People support kind of action in iraq against isis. This is not the kind of competitional controversy that would raise the fight i think we would quite happily get into if this were an academic conversation entirely because there is no dispute about the principle. What is really at issue is why were going in, what the end game is, and exactly what the terms of the authorization should be. I think thats why it is particularly problematic that rather engage in that debate and push through some kind of compromise legislation, Congress Washed their hands of this and went home. I think thats why you see so much widespread agreement between even more progressive commentators and more conservative commentators because everyone i think agrees that congress acted completely irresponsibley by leaving this all for the president even though they support his actions. All right. Well go to janet in maine. Independent caller. Caller hi. How are you . Host good morning caller good morning. I agree with the woman in new jersey. I think the less known the better. And try and think back to 2003 when we all didnt have cell phones. Hard to remember that. But i remember orrin hatch. I believe i saw him say it myself. That we knew what was going on because we were tracing Osama Bin Laden with his cell phone. So he stopped using his cell phone. You know. And the other thats my memory anyway. And the one question i have is does anybody there know that dick armey was not for authorization of the iraq war until dick cheney told him some things that werent true. And im sure dick armey influenced other members of the senate once dick cheney did that. Does anybody know if thats true . I know i do you know the back story . I dont. Okay. Well move on to eric in akron, ohio. Democratic caller. Hi, eric. Caller how you doing . Host good morning caller i had a question about the air war. Why didnt they start gathering up the ground war before they did the air war . Host you want to tag that one . I take the president at his word that he has no taste for introducing combat Ground Troops back into iraq and theres no taste in the administrations pallet either for inserting Ground Troops into syria and its twopart thinking. One is air power and precision strikes along with Coalition Partners is the best way at least at the first phase of whatever we called this for to address the threat. How it evolves, to steves earlier questions, is totally an open question. Are there legal issues with an air strike versus Ground Troops . You wouldnt think so. But i think the suggestion is that the answer is yes. All the statutes congress has passed, what few Supreme Court decisions we have talking about the president s power to act in selfdefense have never suggested a distinction based on what kind of force but practically i think there is an enormous distinction between the introduction of combat troops and scatter shot air strikes. I think weve seen that in the examples mentioned before, the air strikes in kosovo in 1999 versus the perceived need for some kind of real congressional buyin talking about Ground Troops. I dont know if that is a legal reality so much as a political reality but it certainly is an undeniable pattern of our practice. If were talking Ground Troops were talking congress and if scatter shot air strikes, maybe were not. Another tweet from a viewer, peg tweeting in, congress should address the 100 u. S. Isis fighters with u. S. Passports that could return to the United States. Congress has addressed that. There is no question we have bolstered all of our counterterrorism laws in the 13 years since 9 11 to give the u. S. Government that much more authority to deal with individuals especially u. S. Citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorism. We have expanded the territorial application of our criminal statute so it is now a crime to engage in Material Support to terrorism, even overseas, which is something that was not true on 9 11. We have had a far greater success at apprehending suspects overseas and bringing them back to the United States for criminal trial in civilian court. I dont think there is any question we have bolstered our border security, our screening to deal with this threat, and we have plenty of criminal remedies if we get our hands on these guys. The problem is possession. The problem is if you have these hundred or so american citizens in syria or in iraq how do we go get them . I think that is the problem and where all lets go to havana, florida. Republican. Caller how you doing . Host good morning caller where do we start with all this stuff . I want to say, maam, Just Authority to fight, im a vietnam veteran. Ive been through this mess before. Ive heard the same kind of rhetoric. Now its called counterterrorism. We call it counterinsurgency. We didnt get a declaration of war. That was one of the main things the antiwar crowd including mr. Kerry, mrs. Clinton, mr. Clinton, and the rest of them people raised hell about the whole time i was in nam. I didnt see them there. Now were in the same boat, same rhetoric. I just its unbelievable to me they put that powers in there to keep that from happening again. And here we are doing the same thing fighting people we already beat. The whole thing is ridiculous. I was a marine. To see a marine die because of this crap really boils my blood. Host okay. All right. Well, thank you for your service. Semper fi. I totally understand where hes coming from, frankly, as a vet, as a Third Generation navy officer. I mean, i think people on the right were actually happy to hear president obama talk about destroy isis. Because what many on the right have felt about this administration is that there is a lack of appetite to talk about victory and what victory looks like. The precipitous withdrawal from iraq that many people on the right thought was engaged in by the Obama Administration, the hand wringing before engaging in a surge in afghanistan that many on the right thought and blamed the president for. True or not, people especially vets when theyre ordered into battle if its a lawful order, they do it. Like butch and all his fellow devil dogs did. But they want to have faith and trust in the commanderinchief and the National Command authority regardless of party that there is a mission that can be accomplished and that victory is the ultimate goal. Host lets go to nathan, next, st. Louis, missouri, republican. Hi, nathan. Caller yes. I want to know why should we even still have a constitution or not just have a dictator . I dont care what law you pass or patriot act law you pass, it still doesnt trump the constitution even if you have the support of the majority of americans. You still have to get congressional approval to go to war. Host okay. That is certainly true. The question is why doesnt president obama have that approval . What i mean by that is he has a plausible argument that the 2001 act Congress Passed overwhelmingly covers at least some use of force against isis. There is the 2002 statute which Congress Passed overwhelming supports some use of force against isis. I think everyone agrees and president obama would be at the front of the line saying we would all be better off with a case specific statute from congress with Congress Actually speaking to the threat directly. But not as a constitutional matter. I think that is really as a policy matter. Constitutionally i think the president has all the authority he needs, at least in what were doing so far. Indeed, i think we are so obsessed with the legal conversation that were missing butchs point, which is the question of why were doing this in the first place. Thats not a legal question but a political question, a moral question. Weve jumped over those questions to get right to the fight over Legal Authority when, in fact, theres no this is a red herring. There is no real fight here over the legal authorities. Host thats our discussions the debate thats happening in washington and everywhere else, should congress be giving the president authorization for this . Does he have the Legal Authority . So i want our viewers to weigh in on that. Let me get to the phone lines again. Republicans 2025853881 and independents and all others 2025838882. We have two guests this morning to debate this. Take your comments, take your questions about this. A law professor at American UniversityWashington College of law and Charles Simpson a senior legal fellow at Heritage Foundation and also served as the former Deputy Assistant defense secretary for Detainee Affairs. Part of this conversation this morning. I want to ask you you both have said Congress Washed its hands of this and went away. The speaker of the house just as recently as yesterday told politico, it is has been precedent that the president has come to us and asked us to vote on this type of action. He has not done so. Why not lay this at the feet of the president . This is the legal dance that happens between two people at the eighth glade dance. You got the girl on one side, congress is waiting for the handsome boy across the hall, the dance floor to come ask him to dance and he is too scared to ask. I mean, part of this, i dont want to be cute about this, really this goes back to syria and last year. The president asked for authority. Congress didnt give it to him. The president doesnt want to get burned again by asking for something or putting something on paper that congress may reject. And congress and i think theres a political aspect to it, as well, as if that is not political enough. That is, this president was elected twice in part because he wanted to end the wars. For him to put his name on an aumf and send it up to the hill and have them pass it means that this president not only is not the nonwar president , hes e war president with his own amof. Among political scientists, these days we have a separation of parties not a separation of powers. I think thats what we are seeing in these kinds of exchanges. The notion congress shouldnt exercise its independent, institutional responsibility to act in this space to pass legislation because president obama didnt, you know, honor some debatable norm of protocol is i think to confuse little fights with big ones. The question here is if congress believes it has a role to play, congress should play that role no matter what the president says. So i dont know why any member of congress, republican or democrat, should care a wit whether president obama has or has not proposed his own legislation. If you believe as senator kaine clearly does that the far more responsible thing to do in this moment is for congress to pass a much more specific, much more limited use of force authorization who cares what the president did and didnt do . Marie tweets in this. Actually obama should have built a rapport and interpersonal relationships with congress. Richard next in lake placid, florida, independent caller. Hi, richard. Caller good morning. Host good morning. Caller first of all we have a president , commanderinchief who does not believe in victory. He stated that the way we won world war i and world war ii was flawed. And that it should never have happened that way. He also doesnt believe in the constitution. You know, he said as much that the constitution is a flawed document. Weve seen by his actions and his policies that his immigration policy, his years in Government Entities like the irs against the people, conservative groups, and especially with obama care, changing it the way he does without it going through congress, putting pressure on the Supreme Court, all kinds of stuff like this. This is what were dealing with. Okay. All right. Well, i want to tie richard and maries point together. There has been an ongoing series of actions by this administration that have at least to those on the right caused at least some misapprehension or concern about the president s fidelity to not only facing a forceful law but then follow laws as theyre written. The extensions in obama care, the irs. The list goes on and on. We dont need to relitigate those because then steve and i will probably get in a good fis th fight or at least a wrestling match. And that is out there. That perception is out there. But i have never questioned whether or not president obama thinks we should be victorious and ive never questioned the fact that i think he wants to win. I mean, who what president wouldnt want to win . I dont question his patriotism. You know, he may deliver speeches in ways that some on the right dont find satisfying. But thats a political question. I think president obama has been fairly clear whether you agree with him or believe him or not that the reason he thought it was so important to scale down and eventually withdraw troops from iraq and from afghanistan is because it is not in our interest to be in perpetual wars in multiple countries around the world. Thats not about victory or defeat but National Security at home. It costs money. It makes us less safe and that it ultimately is counterproductive from the Foreign Policy perspective to be involved in these wars that may drag on forever and forever and for generations. I dont think its fair to say president obama doesnt believe in victory. I think president obama believes in trying to get us back to peace time. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is not always willing to comply. We should hope we have commanders in chief, republicans, democrats, whatever, who are, you know, aware enough or conscious enough of their role that they recognize that the longterm goal of peace time must at least at some moments be put aside for the shortterm goal of preserving national defense. By the way, the New York Times reporting this morning, another part of the president s strategy is cutting off the funding for isis, treasury announcing imposed sanctions on 11 people and one entity it said were sending financial and other support to terrorist groups including the islamic state. Let me go to moe, herndon, virginia, democratic caller. Go ahead. Caller this is moe. First of all i want to say i support president obama. Secondly i want to say im a muslim. I think the media should stop using the name islamic fundamentalist on these criminals. If people dont fight for islam, you know, timothy mcxsgcaptionkeepcasenext cveigh timothy mcvey, ted bundy, these were christians. They were criminals. I think the president has all the right anybody messes with the United States we should defend ourselves and start protecting the homeland. My point is there is nothing this president has done that people will support this guy. This is the most respectful president ive ever seen people disrespect. They dont even call him mr. President. Obama. I have never seen a president being so disrespected in my entire life in this country. All right. Moe, well go on to lafayette, louisiana. Independent caller. You there . I got to put you on hold. Turn that tv down and ill try to come back to you. Dean in virginia. Democratic caller. Hi, dean. Caller good morning and thank you for cspan. On the victory front, just a comment. You know, its kind of like a game of chess. You have to make your moves very carefully. It seems that some people think victory is wearing boxing gloves and playing chess. Cant be done that way. You really have to be methodical. My question for the two guests if i may is if Saddam Hussein was not toppled and removed, do we think this situation in iraq and syria for that matter would be the same today or would it be different . Ill hang up and take the answer. Thank you. You want to go first . Sure. I think the situation in iraq would be very different. I mean, thats not to say it would be better. There is nothing to commend about Saddam Husseins brutal regime. You know, the one, if there is one upside to a dictatorship it is at least some degree of control. Too much control we might say. I dont know that syria would be any different. I think that was unraveling for a long time and i think it is entirely possible the conditions that allowed isis to flourish and spread in Eastern Syria would if anything have been exacerbated by the presence of a not so opposed strong man just across the southern border. I think wed very much be in a similar situation perhaps not so much in iraq but in syria even if the Saddam Hussein regime had not been toppled. The larger question is where would we be politically had we not gone through the experience of the iraq war . I dont think there is any way to answer that question. Frankly. I think theres too many contingencies and what ifs and assumptions. Its a great question. Cant answer it. Another legal question for the two of you. That is on the u. N. Resolution pushed by president obama yesterday at the security council, voted unanimously. And the New York Times takes issue with it today in their editorial. New focus on foreign fighters. They say another problem with it is that while it specifically mentions isis and al qaeda, it also refers to other unnamed foreign terrorist fighters leaving the term open to different interpretations by different na