"The Daily Show" host, Jon Stewart took aim at President Barack Obama's strategy to take down the Islamic State, highlighting the Obama administration's mixed messages about whether or not their airstrikes were "sustained counterterrorism activities" or "war."

Stewart then played a clip where Fox News' John Roberts explains that "the president is relying on the Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that President (George W.) Bush had signed in 2001 and 2002."

This isn't the first time Obama's gotten flak on this: Associated Press reporter Julie Pace asked White House press secretary Josh Earnest about the "irony in using as your legal justification for these airstrikes an authorization for military force that the President himself has called for repeal of."

Is Obama justifying his airstrikes using the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, while arguing that he wants the same AUMF repealed?

Under the 1973 War powers Act, the president has the power to wage war for 60 days before a Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) or a declaration of war is needed from Congress. Obama authorized airstrikes in Iraq against ISIS on Aug. 7, so to carry out what Obama called a "sustained counter-terrorism strategy" against the Islamic State, he will need some sort of legislation from Congress.

That's what Bush did in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Congress passed an AUMF that gave the Bush the power to use "appropriate force" against anybody behind the attacks. That's been understood to mean al-Qaida, and while the Islamic State used to be part of al-Qaida, they've since split over ideological differences and spats over leadership. Despite al-Qaida and the Islamic State having formally split, the administration's statement cites the group's "long history of conducting . attacks against U.S. persons and interests, the extensive history of U.S. combat operations against ISIL . and ISIL's position . that it is the true inheritor of Osama bin Laden's legacy" as reasons why the 2001 AUMF applies.

Congress passed another AUMF in 2002 authorizing the Iraq War. In Obama's Sept. 10th speech about the Islamic State, Obama said, "I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL," meaning he believes that attacking ISIS is permitted under an existing AUMF, either from 2001 or 2002.

There's no question that Obama said that he wanted the 2001 AUMF repealed. In a speech on May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University, Obama said that he looked "forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate."

Honing in on the "repeal," though, oversimplifies Obama's position. Pace's formulation - that Obama "has called for repeal of" the AUMF and that it's an "AUMF he wants repealed" - implies that Obama wants the AUMF repealed immediately.

That's not the case. In the statement Pace was referring to, Obama said he wanted "to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate." So refining comes first, and repeal is somewhere down the road. Since Obama's 2013 speech, the House of Representatives has voted against two separate amendments from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., that would have repealed the 2001 AUMF. Pace's statement could have used some additional clarification or detail, so Politifact rates her claim Mostly True.

Chip Tuthill is a resident of Mancos. Source used: www.politifact.com