Repeal AUMF? What the hell for?

I seem to have missed a key D.C. headline, but for some reason the blogosphere seems to be abuzz with talk of repealing AUMF [1], the congressional order under which Bush has assumed unqualified latitude in the use military force around the globe.  

I understand the urge.  Bush has used the AUMF as blanket coverage for unspeakable hubris and so it makes sense to repeal the act in order to hobble his shoot ‘em up diplomacy.  But we need to remember that this is all hogwash (about time someone brought back that word).  Not only was the AUMF explicitly written in conjunction with 9-11 which, despite shocking public belief to the contrary, had nothing whatsoever to do with it. 

In fact, if anyone recalls, the AUMF was the second draft of a bill which was defeated on the grounds that it included language authorizing expansion throughout the region.  Once more for the cheap seats, Bush went to Congress specifically asking for the authority to invade Iraq and Congress emphatically voted against it [2].  Bush already knows his citation of AUMF is a farce, and more importantly, the public record proves it.  That’s a big reason why this guy can’t even find a group of soldiers [3] willing to throw applause his way at a staged event.  

So why in the world would we grant legitimacy to his claims by repealing it?  Shouldn’t we instead focus on forcing the Boy King to adhere to Congressional authority [4] and the will of the American people [5]? 

As usual, Olbermann [6] really nailed it last night: 

This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes. 

And to Iran and Syria - and, yes, also to the insurgents in Iraq - we must look like a country run by the equivalent of the drunken pest who gets battered to the floor of the saloon by one punch, then staggers to his feet, and shouts at the other guy's friends, "Ok, which one of you is next?" 

Mr. Bush, the question is no longer "what are you thinking?," but rather "are you thinking at all?"

[7]