(Image Source: The White House)
 

BY ALANA YOUNG

ANCHOR CHRISTINA HARTMAN

 

You're watching multisource world video news analysis from Newsy.

 


Not enough, too much.
Too soon, too late.

President Obama is fighting off growing criticism surrounding recent U.S.-led attacks on Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s air defenses.


Add to that - a chorus of critics who say the commander-in-chief failed to get congressional approval for U.S. involvement.

But the president maintains the necessity AND validity of intervention - citing a U.N. Security Council mandate.

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: “The United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing the United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people.”

But conversations over the U.S.-led and UN-endorsed actions in Libya quickly shifted from arguments over necessity and timing -- to authority and constitutionality. In an interview on CNN, former GOP presidential hopeful -

- Congressman Ron Paul - says the President shouldn’t be meddling in other countries, even if he is trying to help.

PAUL: “I don’t think it’s constitutional, I don’t think it accomplish what it’s supposed to. And, the founders were rather shrewd in giving us advice, ‘Stay out of the entangling alliances, stay out of the internal affairs of other nations’.  Here we are, we’re engaged in two wars, and can’t get out of either one, and we’re just falling into another one and the authority is coming from the United Nations.”  

But another former GOP presidential hopeful - Senator John McCain - came to the President’s defense in an interview with CBS’ Early Show, calling the measure “effective.”

But he did say the President waited too long.

MCCAIN: “My view of what the objective is was to stop what was going to be a near massacre as the Gaddafi troops entered the suburbs of Benghazi, which would have been a horrible bloodbath...(FLASH) The United States policy as articulated is that he [Gaddafi] should go, and he should not stay in power.”

Others say the President’s action was a clear violation of The War Powers Act of 1973 -- which requires Congressional consultation - quote - “in every possible instance” whenever U.S. troops are introduced to - quote - “hostilities.”

But a writer for the New York Times says take a look back through history -- this is a familiar debate.

[Even after the War Powers Act of 1973] “...presidents continued to send the military into action without prior Congressional approval — both with United Nations authorization, as when George Bush intervened in Somalia in 1992, and without it, as when Bill Clinton ordered the bombing in Kosovo in 1999.”  

So it’s been done - but is it constitutional? No clear answers there - but The Atlantic’s Garrett Epps says that’s not the real question.

“Why in heaven's name wouldn't he seek authorization? Doing so would be good for the war effort, good for the nation, and good for Barack Obama.

A Tuesday CBS poll
shows a majority of Americans supporting the U.S. bombing of Tripoli, but on FOX news, political analyst Brit Hume says there is too much uncertainty about whether Mr. Obama’s decision was in the best interest of the U.S.

HUME: “I’m not saying the President has done the right thing necessarily, but I do think there’s a method in all this, which is to keep the United States to a great extent out of the forefront... The question we all have now is how far the allied forces are going to be willing to go here or want to go to carry out this mission of protecting the rebel forces from some humanitarian calamity executed brutally by Gaddafi.”

According to a study by non-partisan research group Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
- maintaining a limited no-fly zone could cost the U.S. between $30 and 100 million a week.

 

Follow Newsy on Twitter @Newsy_Videos for updates in your stream. 

 

Transcript by Newsy

Libya: Was Congressional Authorization Needed?

by
0
Transcript
Mar 22, 2011

Libya: Was Congressional Authorization Needed?

(Image Source: The White House)
 

BY ALANA YOUNG

ANCHOR CHRISTINA HARTMAN

 

You're watching multisource world video news analysis from Newsy.

 


Not enough, too much.
Too soon, too late.

President Obama is fighting off growing criticism surrounding recent U.S.-led attacks on Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s air defenses.


Add to that - a chorus of critics who say the commander-in-chief failed to get congressional approval for U.S. involvement.

But the president maintains the necessity AND validity of intervention - citing a U.N. Security Council mandate.

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: “The United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing the United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people.”

But conversations over the U.S.-led and UN-endorsed actions in Libya quickly shifted from arguments over necessity and timing -- to authority and constitutionality. In an interview on CNN, former GOP presidential hopeful -

- Congressman Ron Paul - says the President shouldn’t be meddling in other countries, even if he is trying to help.

PAUL: “I don’t think it’s constitutional, I don’t think it accomplish what it’s supposed to. And, the founders were rather shrewd in giving us advice, ‘Stay out of the entangling alliances, stay out of the internal affairs of other nations’.  Here we are, we’re engaged in two wars, and can’t get out of either one, and we’re just falling into another one and the authority is coming from the United Nations.”  

But another former GOP presidential hopeful - Senator John McCain - came to the President’s defense in an interview with CBS’ Early Show, calling the measure “effective.”

But he did say the President waited too long.

MCCAIN: “My view of what the objective is was to stop what was going to be a near massacre as the Gaddafi troops entered the suburbs of Benghazi, which would have been a horrible bloodbath...(FLASH) The United States policy as articulated is that he [Gaddafi] should go, and he should not stay in power.”

Others say the President’s action was a clear violation of The War Powers Act of 1973 -- which requires Congressional consultation - quote - “in every possible instance” whenever U.S. troops are introduced to - quote - “hostilities.”

But a writer for the New York Times says take a look back through history -- this is a familiar debate.

[Even after the War Powers Act of 1973] “...presidents continued to send the military into action without prior Congressional approval — both with United Nations authorization, as when George Bush intervened in Somalia in 1992, and without it, as when Bill Clinton ordered the bombing in Kosovo in 1999.”  

So it’s been done - but is it constitutional? No clear answers there - but The Atlantic’s Garrett Epps says that’s not the real question.

“Why in heaven's name wouldn't he seek authorization? Doing so would be good for the war effort, good for the nation, and good for Barack Obama.

A Tuesday CBS poll
shows a majority of Americans supporting the U.S. bombing of Tripoli, but on FOX news, political analyst Brit Hume says there is too much uncertainty about whether Mr. Obama’s decision was in the best interest of the U.S.

HUME: “I’m not saying the President has done the right thing necessarily, but I do think there’s a method in all this, which is to keep the United States to a great extent out of the forefront... The question we all have now is how far the allied forces are going to be willing to go here or want to go to carry out this mission of protecting the rebel forces from some humanitarian calamity executed brutally by Gaddafi.”

According to a study by non-partisan research group Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
- maintaining a limited no-fly zone could cost the U.S. between $30 and 100 million a week.

 

Follow Newsy on Twitter @Newsy_Videos for updates in your stream. 

 

Transcript by Newsy

View More
Comments
Newsy
www2