successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch. it is always preferable to have the informed consent of congress prior to any military action. and mike barnicle, we have heard from one congressman and senator after another, the president just did not adequately consult with the hill before getting involve in this african civil war. well, joe, i guess it s time for all the boys and girls sitting out there in history classes in america to have those textbooks revised because the old advise and consent passage goes right out the window here. senator luger i think is actually probably pretty correct on this and he s touched a cord, i bet not just within the congress, but within the country, as more and more people just wonder what is going on here, the president of the united states has the ability and the authority to start a war at the snap of a finger without even suggesting to congress, hey, what do you think? this is a new line that the
airliners. if he survives, he s going to come back after the leaders and countries that came after him. what is the objective here. is it a fair fight? you know, mcarthur said victory is the purpose of war. not prolonged in decision. that s what we are getting. the explanation from the national security adviser, this is limited in scope, duration and task. we didn t need to go to congress with this. this is a quick in and out exercise. does that pass muster with congress? can they come back and justify a war after they started it? what they are saying, as you point out, tom donilon and others and the team in rio say there s for this. all presidents have defined the war powers act as not restricting their freedom to go into panama and other engagements. the counter argument from
they weren t on capitol hill. you have democrats and republicans saying this president didn t there was no advising consent. this president gave us updates and went and made his decision in paris. that s right, joe. he went and got the support in a security council, not russia, china, brazil, india, china. then he goes to the arab league and gets permission. he doesn t go to the congress of the united states. this is a constitutional thing. we launch the strikes. we attack his compound and kill him. then we say look, we are about done now. we ll pass. i m sorry, the united states started a war here in gadhafi s way of war is to blue up
illegal war launched by the president of the united states without thinking this through, joe. andrea mitchell, of course lugar is in trouble in his own state with tea party members in his own primary. when he comes out and speaks out against the president saying what official washington would have probably all said 20 years ago, when he comes out and says wait a second, you should have come to congress first, you should have consulted. we don t know what our goals are and we are finding ourselves in the middle of a messy, african civil war. lugars comments carry additional weight, do they not? they do. lugar stood tall against the tea party on a range of issues. he has, unlike his fellow republican senators who are in trouble and challenged at home, not at all caved in. there s no one, really, in the foreign policy circle saying in
council. that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by colonel gadhafi to his people. not only was he carrying out murders of civilians, but he threatened more. i also have stated that iis u.s. policy thatadhafi needs to go. and we have got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efftso pport at policy. the american people through the congress need to hear what our president believes his objectives are. if we are going into war with libya, we should declare war on bya and we should pull together with our allies and try to figure out a plan of how that war is to be won. these are things that must be debated here in washington quite apart from paris or at least