At the G20 press conference today, President Obama was questioned on whether he would attack Syria without Congressional approval, and whether he had the authority to act without that approval.  Obama undercut his own administration’s earlier arguments.

According to Mediaite:

Earlier in the press conference, the President enunciated another shift in the White House’s thinking on Syria. Drawing a distinction with situations in which he would not seek authorization from Congress for military action, President Obama said “I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons, on innocent civilians and children post an imminent — posed an imminent direct threat to the United States.”

Last week, however, Fox News’ Ed Henry pressed White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on just that point.

“Candidate Obama said ‘an actual or imminent threat to the nation,’” Henry said, referring to then-Senator Obama’s response to a 2007 Boston Globe questionnaire. “Do you believe that exists?”

“I believe, absolutely, allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place, without a response, would present a significant challenge,” Carney said, with a hesitation, “or threat to the United States’ national security.”

“Not just our allies in the region, but the United States?” Henry asked.

“Correct,” Carney replied.

If it is not “an imminent threat”, then why are we even at this point? Moreover, what was going through your mind, Mr. President, when you bombed Libya, also “not an imminent threat to the U.S.” and you didn’t go to Congress?