Obama to Congress: I don't need new permission on Iraq

[Igel]

3. If so, it's a strange construction.

The first part says it's okay to attack Iraq because it posed a continuing threat. Unless we're going to attack al-Maliki's government, it's not Iraq that poses the threat nor Iraq that's subject to attack. It's a terrorist or insurgent group.

The second part says it's okay to attack,

acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Note that Russia's involvement in E. Ukraine and ISIL's actions are probably equivalent under this text. And would also sanction invading Syria. Or Libya. Or pretty much any place else. (Except that all the fighting stopped and peace was declared, at least in Iraq. However, this and the 2001 AUMF covers all the drone attacks. Obama didn't like it when this granted * powers. He likes it when he has the same powers. Thus is Obama justifying *.)