Gates says Obama advisors supported Libya action

[The Northerner]

(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama's advisers unanimously supported his decision on the use of military force in Libya, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday, playing down the possibility of divisions within the admistration.

"Any president who is contemplating the use of military force should demand a spirited debate, an intense debate, among his advisers on all of the ramifications," Gates said as he to flew to Russia on Sunday.

"Whatever positions people took in that debate and in that discussion, there was unanimous support for the approach the president decided on." (Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Christopher Wilson)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/libya-usa-gates-idUSN2022046120110320

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Not to mention, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams, and Bill Kristol.

Of course, he didn't bother consulting congress.

[still_one]

2. There is no need to, Congress gave him the power with the Iraq War Resolution to act without them

The IWR effectively removed the war powers act

What comes around goes around

[PurityOfEssence]

3. That is simply not true, at all, period, and dangerous to hear such twaddle

The Iraq War Resolution was for Iraq, period.

The War Powers Act requires the President to regularly consult with Congress. The presumption is that he can act immediately in response to an act of aggression against us, but STILL has to consult Congress. In instances where he is the one initiating action where we haven't been attacked, it is quite clear that he is to consult FIRST.

The Iraq War Resolution was not, in any way, an adjustment to the War Powers Act of 1973. It was specifically to give Bush a blank check so he could do it whenever he wanted and not be hampered by Congress.

Law is not what we'd like it to be or what others have gotten away with, the law is the law.

This is from the Act:

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

[still_one]

5. First of all the War Powers Act gives the President 90 days to report to Congress. It has been

argued that the IWR can be applied to more than just Iraq.

[quinnox]

4. Yea, what else is he going to say

"Several close advisor's strongly disagreed with the president, but he went ahead anyway."

Not going to happen, of course everyone is on board officially.