This makes it abundantly clear the Iran strike isn't legal

[bigtree]

58. that's a different question

...and it's certainly not going to save trump for accounting for his own wars waged.

If you want to read about the debate back then, it's all over the internet, and those presidents defended against those questions directly and in detail.

You've brushed past his ability to commit forces and make military strikes for up to 60 days without congressional approval under the WPA.

You've ignored that Obama used the resolutions already passed for Iraq and Afghanistan as his authority to commit forces and conduct other military activity. Seems like a big ommission you're making if you're asserting that he acted illegally. None of those actions was ever found to be illegal.

The Obama White House defended several unilateral military actions by invoking existing congressional authorizations and executive Article II powers rather than seeking fresh, explicit congressional approval — for example, using the 2001 AUMF as part of the legal basis for expanded operations against ISIS and other counter‑terrorism strikes.

Legal and policy observers noted the administration repeatedly told Congress it had authority under prior AUMFs and under the president’s commander‑in‑chief powers when approving airstrikes in Iraq and Syria and when conducting counterterrorism operations overseas.

It would be different if you made a disagreement with the authority he claimed, but that's not what you've posited here.