What do you want to fact-check?
1. Summary of the results
Yes, Obama did drop bombs without congressional approval. The evidence overwhelmingly confirms that former President Barack Obama conducted extensive bombing campaigns without seeking congressional authorization. According to a 2017 Guardian report cited in the analyses, Obama dropped over 25,000 bombs in at least seven nations in 2016 alone without congressional approval [1]. This translates to 72 bombs dropped every single day in 2016, with the majority of attacks occurring in Syria and Iraq [1]. The most prominent example was Obama's military intervention in Libya in 2011, which multiple sources confirm was conducted without congressional authorization [2] [3] [4] [5]. Additionally, Obama launched airstrikes in Syria against ISIS in 2014 without congressional approval, with sources noting that seeking congressional permission could have led to chaos [1].2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question lacks crucial constitutional and legal context. This practice is not unique to Obama - it represents a decades-long pattern where presidents from both parties have pushed against constitutional restraints on military force [3]. The analyses reveal that most presidents since 1973 have ignored parts or all of the War Powers Resolution, which requires reporting to Congress within 48 hours of introducing military forces into hostilities [6]. Legal justifications exist for some presidential military actions. Presidents often cite existing Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) passed by Congress to support their military actions abroad [6]. In Obama's case, the fight against ISIS was justified as targeting terrorists who posed a direct threat to the United States [1]. Congressional acquiescence plays a role - the analyses note that Congress has often allowed presidential authority in military matters to expand through inaction rather than direct challenge [2].3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
While the core claim is factually accurate, the question's framing could be misleading by suggesting Obama's actions were uniquely problematic or unprecedented. The analyses reveal this is a bipartisan phenomenon affecting multiple presidents, including Donald Trump's actions in Syria in 2017 [3] [4]. Political hypocrisy emerges as a significant factor. Sources note that Democrats are being hypocritical in criticizing Trump for similar actions given their past support or silence on Obama's military interventions [5]. This suggests that criticism of presidential war powers often follows partisan lines rather than consistent constitutional principles. The question also omits the scale and context of modern presidential military authority, where the executive branch has systematically expanded its power to conduct military operations with minimal congressional oversight - a trend that spans multiple administrations regardless of party affiliation [3].