confusion with the objective here. are we trying to prevent humanitarian slaughter or get rid of muammar gaddafi? you have administration officials back to back saying two things there seems to be tension. the president tried to explain it and i m not sure it was successful. at the root of this, this is a reluctant war president when he sent additional troops to afghanistan. he doesn t talk much about what we re doing in afghanistan these days. he is not comfortable bringing america to third war. but he has not gone to congress and he has not said you need to authorization what i m doing. asking you to authorize what i m doing. that is part of the reason that we have conflicting mission.
it was president would be within constitutional authority to act before advising congress or seeking concept. history has shown time and time again that military action is most successful when authorized and supported by the legislative branch. it s preferable to have an informed consent of congress prior to any military action. the white house is pushing back saying they invited the lawmakers up to the white house. and had that meeting but a lot different than what the 2007. no question. so it invites charges of hypocrisy because this is what he said and now acted as president. the white house position is we had to act quickly in support of a u.n. resolution. critics say he didn t act quickly enough. but the fact is he is someone who said previously as you read that when it comes to war, the president should be going to congress. one final thought, though the poll numbers suggest now it s 70% of americans support this action. can i defend obama quickly. the presidents take a free
bush did. that s true. the push-back from congress is muddled. the speaker of the house saying that america has a moral obligation to ensure other peoples around the world can vote, and are not abused. that is a pretty big mandate i d say. that is from the leader of republican party. bret: up next, tim pawlenty and the rest of the 2012 presideñ
pentagon about what is the end game and how do you get to it? when you hear general say that gaddafi could remain in power, and then you hear the president say the u.s. policy gaddafi must go, you can imagine how confusing. you wonder if we arm diplomats. the military mission is not to remove colonel gaddafi. yet,ite tess u.s. policy, policy of the administration to see him go. therein lies tension. again, this has everything to do with congress at this point. if the president wanted to gain authorization he d have to go to congress to get authorization. if he is talking about having the military remove gaddafi, i think most people would agree that is what has to happen. bret: juan, put this up. this is from candidate obama 2007 in an interview with the boston globe. the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to nation. in instances of self-defense
if he went to congress because he s not going to congress he is going to have to, he would have to go to them and say muammar gaddafi has to go. then you need authorization. i think in a way that there is precedent he doesn t need it now. bret: juan, he is getting criticism from both sides. some lawmakers up on capitol hill who are standing with him. saying it s a little late. it s good he is doing it. what about the administration and how they are dealing with the day-to-day messaging here? well, the day-to-day messaging is confused, because inside the administration, going back to last tuesday, a huge row with them saying this is complicated and it could involve tremendous mission creep, as you were hearing. we re not sure given the burdens that are already existing in the military this is a wise move. you get secretary of state clinton and rice and powers,