Let's Attack Syria

This little tidbit is being dredged up from the memory rabbit hole; it's a response given to the Boston Globe by Candidate Obama during the Bush presidency.  You can accept or deny the prologue, but you can't pretend Senator/Candidate Obama didn't say what he said?

I will simply never understand the view that the Constitution allows the President unilaterally to commit the nation to prolonged military conflict in another country — especially in non-emergency matters having little to do with self-defense — but just consider what candidate Barack Obama said about this matter when — during the campaign — he responded in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
OBAMA:  The President 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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

So is the War Powers Act now officially dead?

And how about what he said as a senator about raising the debt limit, and how that's now entirely opposite of his view as president?