Fact check: Did Obama get congressional approval after bombing libya

1. Summary of the results

No, President Obama did not obtain congressional approval after bombing Libya. The evidence from multiple sources consistently shows that Obama bypassed Congress entirely for the 2011 Libya military intervention.

The Obama administration's primary justification was that the US was playing only a "supporting role" in the NATO-led mission, therefore congressional approval was unnecessary under the War Powers Act ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The White House argued that US forces were not engaged in "hostilities" as defined by the War Powers Resolution, which would have triggered the requirement for congressional authorization ^[1].

Instead of seeking congressional approval, Obama cited a UN Security Council resolution as his primary authority for military action ^[4]. This approach faced bipartisan criticism from Congress, with lawmakers from both parties challenging the administration's legal reasoning ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context:

• The War Powers Act requires presidential notification to Congress within 48 hours and congressional approval after 60 days of military engagement - however, every president since the act's enactment has claimed it unconstitutionally infringes on presidential authority as Commander-in-Chief ^[5].
• Obama's administration argued the intervention was justified on humanitarian grounds and had international support, positioning it as a moral imperative rather than a traditional military engagement ^[6].
• Constitutional scholars and policy experts have argued that Obama's actions violated the War Powers Resolution and that Congress failed to assert its constitutional authority to check executive power ^[7].
• The Libya intervention ultimately ended in failure, with long-term consequences that critics point to as evidence of the dangers of unilateral executive military action ^[5].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question is factually neutral and doesn't contain obvious misinformation. However, it could benefit from additional context:

• The question focuses on "after bombing" but doesn't specify that Obama never sought approval before, during, or after the military engagement ^{[4] [7]}.
• The framing might imply that congressional approval was eventually sought, when in fact the administration consistently maintained that no such approval was necessary throughout the entire operation ^{[3] [4]}.
• Missing is the broader constitutional debate about executive war powers versus congressional authority that this case exemplified, with implications extending beyond just the Libya intervention to future military actions ^{[5] [7]}.