Congress has all but given up on voting to legally authorize the war against Isis, despite the fact that US-led military strikes against the group have been going on for nine months already and span multiple countries. By doing so, our representatives are saying to the next president, whether he or she is a Republican or Democrat: feel free go to war wherever you want, against whomever you want. We have no power to stop you.

Despite the fact that the US plans on conducting airstrikes on Isis in Iraq and Syria for years, the Chicago Tribune reported on Monday that key members in the House and Senate have resigned themselves to the fact that there’s virtually no chance of Congress agreeing on any sort of bill to constrain or legalize the Obama administration’s bombing campaign in the Middle East.

Out of cowardness or worry they might actually have to make a consequential decision, Congress has abdicated their responsibility under Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution - not to mention the War Powers Act - to authorize or declare war. So when President Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio decides to unilaterally bomb Iran in 2017, remember this moment, when members of Congress willingly gave up one of the most important responsibilities they have because they were too terrified to take a stand one way or another.

Also, remember that it was a Democratic president who decided to initiate this potentially decades long war without getting approval from the American public first. It was a Democratic president who treated congressional approval like icing on top of the cake and told them he would continue airstrikes indefinitely whether Congress approved it or not.

At least select few members of Congress seem to be aware of this danger. “As an institution, we’re the ones who are going to suffer because future presidents are going to look back at this and say: ‘We don’t need Congress to make war.’ It’s a terrible precedent”, Democratic Representative Adam Schiff said earlier this week.

This fact, though, has been lost on many members of the media, who have filled our television sets with illuminating questions like: “Did the exit of US forces [from Iraq in 2011] fuel Isis?” If only we occupied Iraq forever, there’d never have been a problem. That sounds like a question from perennial war monger and professional troll Bill Kristol’s dreams. If only we occupied Iraq forever, there’d never have been a problem. Everyone also seems to forget Obama didn’t exactly leave Iraq voluntarily, we were forced out.

While Republican candidates are at least being asked if they would have invaded Iraq knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, few if any are forced to confront the fact that the invasion caused the very nightmare we’re in now. Could we have avoided the threat of Isis had we not invaded and occupied Iraq for a decade, killed hundreds of thousands of people and thrown a bunch of future Isis leaders into squalid or torture-filled jails together?

Instead, cable news hosts turn it around and ask perhaps the dumbest question ever, which has been repeated countless times over the past decade: would we be better off if Saddam was still in power? Meet the Press’ Chuck Todd asked Rand Paul this question on Sunday. No matter your opinion of Paul, but the question is absurd, and he’s right about a larger point: “It’s also bothersome that the mainstream media continues to invite the architects of the Iraq invasion on to share their opinions on Sunday morning shows.” Doesn’t matter how wrong they’ve been for so long, they’re invited back each and every week.

Meanwhile, there are many questions the media should be asking, but are barely ever uttered on national television. For example, is US foreign policy making us less safe, rather than increasing our security, as Micah Zenko pondered this week. Or, why are we letting the CIA, an agency with a long history wreaking havoc on whatever it touches, almost exclusive control over Middle East policy, as Foreign Policy detailed recently. Why have we not seen any material gains despite us dropping more than 1,500 bombs per month since the beginning of the year?

But whether you support the ISIS war or not, it’s really strange that hardly anyone seems to care that the Obama administration is relying on the al-Qaida and Iraq War resolutions for its fight against an enemy that didn’t exist before 9/11, that is enemies with al-Qaida and is fighting in many countries besides Iraq.

As we watch presidential candidates fight about who will bomb the Middle East harder to solve the problems created by bombing the Middle East the first time, let’s stop and think: how will we stop the next illegal war if no one cares about this one?