Took me a little while, but it’s apparent that Obama and Carney appear to indeed be pushing it. How can you use “limited” strikes under the WPA 90 day rule and then have Carney argue that the limitedness of the operations somehow does away with the 90 day rule? How can only boots on the ground be the definition of what constitutes war?
If Obama finds the WPA to be unconstitutional, then he shouldn’t push it but have asked Congress beforehand to scuttle it. Why would Obama, a Dem, want to have the WPA thrown out if Dems use the WPA to beat Republicans?
My guess is that Obama had no idea what he was doing, rushed into things with the best excuse he could come up with, and is now living with the consequences.
If he can get congress to say "No big deal, we agree that the WPA doesn't really apply here" then the Democrats will retain the WPA as a stick with which they can beat future Republican presidents.
However, Obama may have opened a can of worms. If Congress says, "We seek to enforce the WPA" then Obama may end up trying to kill the thing and taking that weapon away from future Democrats.