Now that the Libyan rebel movement, led by the Transitional National Council (TNC), appears to be taking over Tripoli, their need for access to the frozen billions of dollars of Qaddafi assets is even more urgent, the TNC's top representative in Washington told The Cable today.

Ali Aujali, the former ambassador for Qaddafi who defected in March and now serves as the charge d'affaires at the rebel-controlled embassy in Washington, said that the TNC's long struggle for control over the funds that were frozen by U.N. Security Council resolutions and U.S. executive orders must be overcome for the rebels to assert control in Tripoli.

"The immediate next step is to get Qaddafi, that's number one. Number two, we need money. The third thing is that TNC will move to Tripoli as soon as it's a secure place," Aujali said. "We need this money, because we need to supply food, we need medical treatment for our injured, we need to pay salaries, we need to run facilities."

For more than three weeks, the U.N. sanctions committee has been considering whether to unfreeze some of the estimated tens of billions of dollars in frozen Libya assets. But Aujali said it is the position of the TNC that it does not need the approval of the sanctions committee to access the funds.

"I don't think we need sanctions committee authorization because the TNC will inherit the regime," he said. The U.N. has not officially recognized the TNC as the government of Libya.

But don't expect the TNC to keep the institutions of the Qaddafi regime intact. Aujali said that the institutions of the Libya state were so corrupted and so controlled by the Qaddafi family that they are of little use in the new Libya.

"All the institutions are to serve Qaddafi and his Green Book. We need to build everything from zero: democratic institutions, civil society, government organizations. Everything was controlled by Qaddafi and his sons," he said.

While the exact schedule has not been set, Aujali's understanding is that, after the TNC moves to Tripoli, it will set up a conference to draft a new constitution, which will then be approved or rejected by the Libyan people in a referendum. He said the TNC would then start to organize elections, a process he predicted could take about eight months.

Aujali said the TNC was committed to preventing retribution on the ground in Tripoli and upholding the ideals of inclusiveness and respect for the rule of law. He implored the U.S. government to increase its coordination and support for the rebels.

"I want the administration to unfreeze the frozen money, to commit to support the Libyan people, to interact with the TNC as much as they can, and to keep the NATO mission action until the threat of Qaddafi is no more," he said.

Aujali said that he hasn't been in regular contact with the State Department over the weekend, because he's been focusing on following the events on the ground in Tripoli. But CNN reported that Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, who is in Cairo and was recently in Benghazi, was contacted by Qaddafi regime officials as recently as Saturday.

"I think they were looking for a way to find a lifeline, buy time, to prevent what was then becoming inevitable, which was the uprising in Tripoli," he said.

In an interview with ABC News Monday morning, Feltman said that it was clear the rebels were winning that that he didn't think a violent unraveling of the security situation was likely in Libya, as happened in Baghdad when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein fell.

"A lot of that sectarian mix that existed in Saddam Hussein's Iraq doesn't exist here in Libya," Feltman said. He also said that "the overwhelming vision that we are hearing" from people across Libya is that "they want a Libya that is moderate, that is secular."

Anthony Cordesman, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said on Monday that the Obama administration needs to develop an aggressive yet nuanced plan to increase U.S. involvement and aid in Libya to support the TNC, while at the same time not giving the impression that Western ideas were being imposed there.

"Bad as our current economic problems are, it would be incredibly foolish not to offer aid to Libya (and Egypt, Tunisia, and any other states caught up in this wave of change.)," he said. "Failing to provide that aid will not simply be penny wise and pound foolish; the price of such a U.S failure will eventually be paid in U.S. and allied blood."

At least there's one person who is bringing Democrats and Republicans together this summer. Actress, singer, and humanitarian Mandy Moore recently led a bipartisan delegation of congressional staffers on a trip to Cameroon to promote foreign aid and disease prevention there.

Moore spoke with The Cable late last week from the Cameroonian capital of Yaounde, where she was finishing up a visit before the lauch of Cameroon's upcoming country-wide campaign to give out long-lasting insecticide treated anti-malaria mosquito nets. The visit was organized by Nothing but Nets, run by the U.N. Foundation and the global health organization Population Services International (PSI).  Moore has been an ambassador with PSI for over two years.

"Every 45 seconds a child dies of malaria and this is the number one leading cause of death here in Cameroon," Moore told The Cable. "I'm here with this bipartisan congressional delegation to learn how this net distribution actually happens.... I've loved coming here with them because they ask some hard hitting questions."

The delegation visited a clinic run by the Chantal Biya Foundation, met with private sector leaders and UNICEF representatives, filmed a public service announcement in a rural area that is receiving nets, and distributed nets at a local orphanage. Moore also met with Prime Minister Philemon Yang and Minister of Public Health André Mama Fouda.

Moore's trip comes right in the middle of a fight over foreign aid funding in Congress. Moore said the plight of the Cameroonians was one issue that shouldn't fall victim to partisan bickering or short-term cost-cutting.

"I think it's lovely that it's a bipartisan delegation. I think this is an issue that effects and unites both Republicans and Democrats," she said. "African economies are critical to the health of our economy, from manufacturing to consumer goods, and even with some of the things that I do in terms of music and films."

"One of the things I love about our country is that we are a generous country and the work that we're doing here and elsewhere in the developing world is having real, measurable results and I feel fortunate that the congressional staffs can see that as well."

Moore didn't perform during the trip, but the Cameroonians put on a show for her and her team. They threw a gala that included traditional dancers who had the name "Mandy Moore" painted in pink letters on their stomachs.

The Hill staffers on the trip included Michael Shank, communications director and senior policy advisor for Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA),  Julie Nickson, chief of staff for Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Steven Shearer, chief of staff for Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL), Richard Hudson, chief of staff for Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), Rachel Dresen, legislative director for Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ), Jenn Holcomb, legislative assistant for Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), and Jessica J. Lee, legislative assistant for Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA).

"For what I pay every day for lunch at Longworth House Office Building cafeteria, I can save two lives in Cameroon from deadly malaria, which kills a significant portion of this country's population each year," one of the staffers on the delegation told The Cable. "Major props to Mandy for making this a priority in South Sudan, Central African Republic and now Cameroon, and for dedicating her platform to malaria prevention."

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives in Turkey for the latest meeting of the Libyan Contact Group on Friday, she will be asked to address how the Obama administration intends to help the rebel's Transitional National Council (TNC), which is running out of money and patience.

But what can she say? What will she say?

Four senators are renewing their push for the administration to recognize the TNC in advance of the Istanbul meeting. In a letter to Clinton last week, which was obtained by The Cable, they argued that the TNC's expanded inclusiveness and its new territorial gains make the case for recognition stronger. What's more, they said that diplomatic recognition was the best way to release the more than $30 billion in frozen Libyan assets that the rebels desperately want.

"We believe that formal recognition is justified, necessary and urgent," wrote Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Marco Rubio (R-FL). "Even more importantly, diplomatic recognition by the United States is now the best available means to ensure the TNC can secure access to the financial resources it desperately needs to meet the needs of the Libya people and sustain its fight against the Qaddafi regime, as legislation in Congress for this purpose has unfortunately become bogged down."

Over the past days, the White House has been considering the issue of extending diplomatic recognition intensively. We're told that there has been both a Deputies Committee meeting and a Principals Committee meeting in recent days to discuss what to do about the TNC. We don't know what the decision was, or if one has officially been made, but Clinton will likely unveil that information in Istanbul on Friday.

What's clear though is that the administration is in a bind, and one of its own making. They haven't recognized the TNC officially, which is the prerequisite for releasing some or all of the frozen Libyan assets to the TNC. The administration has come close, saying that the TNC is "the legitimate and credible interlocutor for the Libyan people." But that doesn't equal an official recognition, and doesn't allow the TNC to get their hands on the funds.

So far, 26 countries have recognized the TNC, including France, Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Canada.

The administration had been depending on Congress to pass legislation that would speed as much as $10 billion to the TNC from the frozen Qaddafi coffers. Unsurprisingly, the relevant legislation is bogged down in the Senate and has very little prospect of surfacing any time soon.

On Capitol Hill, frustration is growing with what many lawmakers and staffers see as a hands-off approach by the administration toward the Libyan rebels. For example, there is only a smattering of U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi, while other countries, such as Britain, have dozens of diplomats and advisors on hand.

The administration has one other option to get the money to the rebels. They could use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), former Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey argued in an article for the Council on Foreign Relations. That law allows the president to take certain steps if he determines that a situation poses an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security. But since the White House has said there are no "hostilities" going on in Libya, that's going to be a tough case to make.

Yesterday, Clinton praised European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton for opening an EU office in Benghazi, but didn't say anything about the Obama administration's plans to assist the rebels in the near- or medium-term.

"As momentum continues to build in Libya, the people are not waiting to plan their new post-Qadhafi future. They are laying the foundation, organizing the institutions, and preparing the infrastructure, and the international community will support these efforts," Clinton said.

Whether the United States will be an integral part of those efforts remains to be seen.

GOP senators fought back today against the Democratic leadership's plan to debate and vote on the Libya war this week, but, following that episode, the leader of that effort said it should be the next item on the Senate's agenda.

Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN), Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and several other GOP senators held a late Tuesday afternoon press conference to celebrate the fact that they forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to scuttle his plans to hold a cloture vote on the Kerry-McCain resolution authorizing the military intervention in Libya.

"The events of this afternoon were very, very significant," Sessions said at the presser. "The Senate has sent a message to the leadership that we expect in this recess period that we do real work on the financial condition of our country, which includes budget issues and the debt ceiling. Those matters are of extreme focus for American and we should focus on that."

Of course, there isn't likely to be any floor debate on the debt limit this week, because those negotiations are stalled and being held behind closed doors. But there won't be any debate over the Libya war either, thanks to the efforts of the GOP caucus.

So when should the Senate get around to debating the Libya war, according to these senators? The Cable pressed Corker on that question at the press conference. After several attempts to skirt the question, Corker declared that the Libya debate was a lower priority because it won't force the administration to actually change its actions there, but nevertheless should be the Senate's next order of business.

Here's the exchange:

Josh Rogin: There are a lot of senators who want to debate the Libya war. It's been almost four months since we attacked Libya. When do you propose we get back to that?

Bob Corker: I think most people know that the resolution that's before us was defeated in the House. One of the things that has been a misnomer, the president has never asked for authorization of Libya.... What he did say is he would like to have a "sense of the Senate" resolution in support. In a cute way, he's tried to bypass the War Powers [Resolution]. I would have respected them more if they would have just said, "Hey we think [the War Powers Resolution] is unconstitutional." So there's no question that we need to return to the issue of Libya, because you cannot have somebody calling something "not hostilities" when it is. Let's settle this once and for all.... I think we will get back to that.

JR: When?

BC: There was nothing we were going to do this week in the Senate that in any way would have affected what was actually happening on the ground in Libya, nothing. Everybody knew that. The Senate might have voiced its opinion, but since the House already voted against the same resolution, nothing was going to change. So you're right, we need to get back to that.

JR: When?

BC: In my opinion -- I don't set the agenda -- that ought to be the very next item after we deal with these financial matters, that are more pressing and are something that we can actually affect, because again what we were going to do on Libya, which we are not going to do now, really wasn't going to affect the activities there either on the ground or in the air one iota.

Following the House of Representatives' stunning rebuke of the Obama administration's intervention in Libya last Friday, the Senate will weigh in tomorrow with a host of new proposed restrictions on President Barack Obama's war authorities.

The House voted overwhelmingly Friday not to authorize the Libya intervention and then narrowly rejected a measure that would have cut off most of the funding for the mission. A majority of lawmakers wanted to cut off the funds for Libya, but the vote failed because many congressmen believed that the bill, which left some of the funding in place, amounted to a "back door authorization" for the war.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow with State Department Counselor Harold Koh to examine the administration's claim that the Libya war does not amount to "hostilities," and therefore does not require congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution.

After the hearing, the committee will hold a business meeting to consider a bill by Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that would authorize the Libya intervention. The committee could very well approve the bill, but not before several changes are made through amendments, most of them coming from ranking Republican Richard Lugar (R-IN).

"In this case, President Obama made a deliberate decision not to seek a Congressional authorization of his action, either before it commenced or during the last three months. This was a fundamental failure of leadership that placed expedience above Constitutional responsibility," Lugar will say at Tuesday's hearing, according to prepared remarks obtained by The Cable.

"At the outset of the conflict, the President asserted that U.S. military operations in Libya would be ‘limited in their nature, duration, and scope.' On this basis, the administration asserted that the actions did not require a declaration of war. Three months later, these assurances ring hollow," Lugar will say. "American and coalition military activities have expanded to an all but declared campaign to drive [Col. Muammar al] Qaddafi from power. The administration is unable to specify any applicable limits to the duration of the operations. And the scope has grown from efforts to protect civilians under imminent threat to obliterating Libya's military arsenal, command and control structure, and leadership apparatus." 

Expect Lugar and other senators to challenge Koh on evidence that he was previously a staunch critic of granting the president unilateral war-making authority before joining the Obama administration. Koh reportedly supported the argument that the Libya intervention fell short of "hostilities" during the intra-administration debate on the topic.

When the committee does take up the Kerry-McCain resolution, Lugar will lead off with five amendments -- to limit the funds to only truly supportive functions like refueling and intelligence support, prevent any funding for ground troops, require the president to report every 60 days on the costs and progress of the Libya war, make sure it's clear Congress won't pay for reconstruction, and finally, to establish that it's the Senate's view that the Libya war does include "hostilities" and does fall under the War Powers Resolution. 

Some or all of these could be approved by the committee, but the last one is almost sure to pass, given widespread congressional rejection of the administration's claim that legislative authorization is not required.

"You'll see overall consensus that their finding on a lack of ‘hostilities' doesn't stand," Lugar spokesman Mark Helmke told The Cable. "The overall mood is that you have to have authorization, and the question then is: Do enough Democrats feel comfortable with the other restrictions?" 

Inside the committee, three Democrats have expressed reservations about the Libya war and could join with Republicans to restrict the president's authorities: Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and new committee member Richard Durbin (D-IL).

Webb said on Sunday's Meet the Press that he would support Lugar's amendments, and he criticized the Libya mission harshly.

"The president did not come to the Congress, and the reasons that he used for going in defy historical precedent," Webb said. "We weren't under attack, we weren't under an imminent attack, we weren't honoring treaty commitments, we weren't rescuing Americans. So, on the one hand, there's a very serious issue of precedent here."

Boxer pressed Kerry during a back and forth on the Senate floor on June 22, pushing him to confirm that the Libya resolution would not authorize ground troops and would expire in one year. Durbin supports the Kerry-McCain resolution but does not agree with the administration's argument that congressional authorization is unnecessary.

There are several other amendments expected Tuesday. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has two amendments: one that would require the administration to seek reimbursement of the expenses of the mission from frozen Libyan assets and one that would require the administration to brief Congress every 15 days. Corker wants the authorization for the Libya war to expire after 6 months, as opposed to the 12 months granted under the Kerry-McCain measure.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) will offer an amendment that would call for further action on the investigation of the bombing of Pan Am 103, which was conducted by members of the Qaddafi regime. Going against the grain, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) will offer three amendments: to require the president to consult Congress before deploying ground troops,  use the frozen assets to pay for U.S. operations, and clarify that Qaddafi's removal is the official policy of the U.S.

If and when SFRC finally approves the Kerry-McCain resolution to authorize the Libya war, that will mark the end of the Libya debate in the Senate for a while. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is not expected to begin the full Senate floor debate until after the July 4 recess.

The top U.S. admiral involved in the Libya war admitted to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The same admiral also said he anticipated the need for ground troops in Libya after Qaddafi falls, according to the lawmaker.

House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) told The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Qaddafi, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to insist that "regime change" is not the goal and is not authorized by the U.N. mandate authorizing the war.

"The U.N. authorization had three components: blockade, no fly zone, and civil protection. And Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Qaddafi's military, which includes Qaddafi," Turner said. "He said that currently is the mission as NATO has defined."

"I believed that we were [targeting Qaddafi] but that confirmed it," Turner said. "I believe the scope that NATO is pursuing is beyond what is contemplated in civil protection, so they're exceeding the mission."

Later in the same briefing, Turner said, Locklear maintained that the NATO mission does not include regime change. "Well, certainly if you remove Qaddafi it will affect regime change," Turner said that he replied. "[Locklear] did not have an answer to that."

Locklear also said that, upon Qaddafi's removal, ground troops would be needed during the immediate period of instability, Turner said. In fact, Locklear said publicly that a "small force" might be necessary following the collapse of the Qaddafi regime in a May 30 conference in Varna, Bulgaria.

Turner joined hundreds of other lawmakers in voting against authorizing the Libya war on Friday morning. The authorization resolution was defeated 123 to 297. A subsequent vote on a bill to defund the Libya mission also failed 180-238 .

Turner has been opposed to the Libya war from the start and even introduced a resolution opposing the effort. For him, Friday's chaotic Libya debate was a direct result of the administration's neglect and disrespect of Congress throughout the debate over the mission.

"The president hasn't come to Congress and said any of this, and yet Admiral Locklear is pursuing the targeting of Qaddafi's regime, Qaddafi himself, and contemplating ground troops following Qaddafi's removal," Turner said. "They're not being straightforward with Congress... It's outrageous."

Ignoring Congress allowed the administration to ignore the large, looming questions about the Libya war that congressmen are asking -- especially today, as another vote to defund the mission looms before the House next month, when the defense appropriations bill is set to be debated. But if the House does vote to defund the mission, Turner said, Obama will have nobody to blame but himself.

"I believe that this administration has handled this so badly, that if they had come to Congress, I think they would have done more of their homework. They have not done a full assessment of their mission, its scope, or the consequences if they're successful. Congress would have required that," Turner said. "Now it's a little late."

On Friday, the Obama administration will reach the 60-day limit on how long it can wage war in Libya without congressional authorization, as spelled out in the War Powers Resolution of 1973. But does the administration, or for that matter Congress, even care?

Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. § 1544(b)) mandates that:

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is  earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. 

President Barack Obama notified Congress of his intention to commit U.S. forces to war in Libya on March 21, so the 60-day deadline is May 20. But there's no chance the U.S. involvement in the Libyan war will end by then and there's no chance Congress will move to formally express its view on the war before the deadline.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) circulated a letter on Wednesday, obtained by The Cable, demanding that Obama explain exactly what he plans to do.

"As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely. Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response," Paul wrote.

The letter was also signed by Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Mike Lee (R-UT).

The Cable asked NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president intended to comply with the War Powers Act or even believed it to be constitutional, but Vietor declined to comment.

We're told by two congressional sources that the White House is considering declaring that U.S. military involvement in Libya has paused, only for it to resume in a few days, thereby resetting the 60-day clock. But that questionable legal tactic, for now, is not being confirmed by anybody in the administration.

Regardless, as of Friday, any one senator can invoke the War Powers Resolution, which would force the Senate to debate the issue. Several Senate offices are scrambling now to figure out exactly how the law would be invoked, but the most likely scenario would be for one senator to raise a budget point of order, which would seek to cut off all funding for war operations in Libya immediately, thus kicking off the debate.

The White House does seem nervous about the deadline. The administration pulled Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from a scheduled Thursday hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was then cancelled.

Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) had been working on a resolution expressing support for the administration's military intervention in Libya, but the final language was never worked out and the momentum for doing anything in the Senate with regard to Libya petered out as the focus turned to the budget battle.

Kerry told reporters on Tuesday that he was open to debating and passing a resolution in the Senate on Libya, but said he didn't see any enthusiasm from leadership or his caucus to get something done.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said on Tuesday that a Senate resolution approving the Libya war was more trouble than it was worth because though most senators approved of the Libya war, they couldn't agree on the details of how a resolution should be worded.

Still, there are several GOP senators who would like to use the deadline to press the administration for more clarity on the mission: goals, benchmarks, costs, and lots of other details. These senators include Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) who has been demanding such answers to no avail.

But GOP senators are in something of a bind on the issue, as several of them are on the record as arguing that the War Powers Resolution, which has never been challenged in court, is unconstitutional.

"I've never recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, nor has any president, Republican or Democrat," exclaimed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), speaking to reporters on Tuesday.

Levin predicted that if the issue came to a head, the White House would declare the law invalid.

"If we operated under the War Powers Act, [the White House is] going to say the War Powers Act is not constitutional and the whole thing ends in court," Levin said.

He added that there's an easier and more effective way for senators to stop the war -- if that's what they want to do. They can just hold up the money.

"You don't have to go through the complexities of the War Powers Act.... It's called the power of the purse."

Mahmoud Jibril, the prime minister of the Libyan opposition's Transitional National Council (TNC), called on the United States to formally recognize Libya's rebels as the country's legitimate representative body so that urgent financial assistance can begin to flow.

The Obama administration has repeatedly called for Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi to step down from power but the State Department has not abandoned its official recognition of the Qaddafi government and transferred recognition to the TNC, as did France, Italy, and Qatar. Without that recognition, the TNC can't begin to draw from the billions of dollars in assets that had belonged to the Qaddafi regime and were frozen by the international community shortly after the revolution began, Jibril said during his Thursday visit to Washington.

"I would like to call on the United States and this administration to help us," Jibril told an audience at the Brookings Institution. "We are facing a real crisis, running almost out of money... We have a real human tragedy in the making right now."

The frozen Libyan government assets are valued at about $34 billion. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said May 6, "We're looking at ways that we can take frozen assets from the Qaddafi regime and provide those to the Transitional National Council."

But Jibril said that, without official recognition, it was impossible to get access to the funds or even to draw a line of credit based on the frozen assets.

"We are not recognized by the United States, so they cannot release the money," he said.

He also noted the contradiction in the administration calling for Qaddafi to go but continuing to recognize his government.

"Ironically enough, the United States is declaring that the regime lost its legitimacy, so it's not recognizing the other regime by the very fact of this official statement," Jibril said. "We need political recognition by just recognizing this council as the sole legitimate representative interlocutor of the Libyan people."

Jibril said that Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) was working on legislation that would provide about $180 million to the TNC, but that the council needs about $3 billion to provide for Libyan citizens over the next six months.

Jibril also feared that the Congressional appropriations process might be too slow, and that delay in funding could lead to vast humanitarian suffering. "Four or five weeks might be too late. We need this money yesterday, not today."

According to Jibril, some countries have justified their failure to recognize the TNC by explaining that the Libyan opposition does not actually constitute a state. Legally, if the TNC were to form a government, that would facilitate recognition, but the TNC doesn't want to take that step because that could lead to a partition of the country, he explained.

Clearly frustrated, Jibril pleaded for the administration to look beyond the legalities and recognize the TNC as a political gesture.

"If you are convinced of the legitimacy of this revolution, of the legitimate demands of those people, then some political steps have to be taken," he said.

He said that the Libyan revolution was a peaceful movement that had been forced into armed revolt by the brutal actions of the Qaddafi regime. "The freedom fighters are marching toward Tripoli," he said, predicting that Qaddafi regime would ultimately collapse or be overrun, although he couldn't predict when.

"Either an internal crackdown will take place or a total collapse of the regime will materialize in the next few weeks, hopefully," said Jibril.

He also laid out what the TNC sees as a "roadmap" for Libya to reorganize politically if and when Qaddafi falls. First, the TNC would convene a national congress, which would draw representatives from all regions of Libya, to select the committee that would draft a constitution. The constitution would then be put to a referendum, supervised by the United Nations. If the constitution is approved, the new Libyan government would then hold parliamentary elections, followed shortly thereafter by a presidential election.

Jibril is meeting with National Security Advisor Tom Donilon at the White House tomorrow. He will also meet Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and some members of Congress before leaving Washington.

Part of his message to U.S. officials will be that the United States must continue to play a prominent and active role in dealing with the crisis in Libya.

"If I meet President Obama... I would strongly urge him to play a more active role, because there is a lot at stake strategically for the United States if that role is not played properly. There is a lot to be lost," Jibril said.

In just over a week, 60 days will have passed since the war in Libya began. But Congress has no plans to exercise its rights under the War Powers Act to either approve or stop the administration's use of U.S. military forces to fight the army of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the president to commit U.S. forces for 60 days without the explicit authorization of Congress, with another 30 days allowed for the withdrawal of those forces.

"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 a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces," the law states.

But the administration won't be immediately pressed to follow the law if nobody in Congress intends to enforce it. Both leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told The Cable on Tuesday that there are no plans for Senate action on the war in Libya -- before or after the deadline.

"I'm not hearing from my colleagues that they feel the War Powers situation is currently in play because we're deferring to NATO," committee chairman Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told The Cable. Kerry had been working on a resolution with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) but the text was never finalized.

Kerry said there's nothing on the schedule either in his committee, where a resolution based on the War Powers Act would have to originate, or on the Senate floor. "I'm certainly prepared to listen and be responsive," if senators want to debate the war, he said.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the committee's ranking Republican, told The Cable he also doesn't see any action on the horizon, but he called on the Senate to start conducting oversight of the war and demanding more details from the Obama administration.

"I'm one who believes that there does need to accountability, if not a declaration of war under the War Powers Act, at least some specific resolution that would give authority," Lugar said. "But even absent that, some definition from the president of what our plan is, what our metrics would be, and by this time what the costs have been, quite apart from the estimate of what they will be."

Asked if the president is legally required to begin ending U.S. military involvement when the 60-day window closes, Lugar said it's a possibility.

"That is certainly one strong interpretation of this. I'll examine that when we come to it," he said. "The War Powers Act has been argued through several administrations as to whether the president feels bound by it or not."

Overall, he and many others in the Senate lament that the budget debate and other issues have pushed the Libya discussion to the back burner.

"There has never has been the correct focus on Libya with regard to congressional hearings or congressional debate," Lugar said.

The White House finally approved the $25 million in non-lethal aid to the Libya rebels that the State Department had notified Congress about on April 15.

The White House released a memo late Tuesday from President Obama to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates officially authorizing them to "drawdown" up to $25 million of "non lethal aid and services" to give to the Libyan Transitional National Council "to support efforts to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack in Libya."

The State Department's Congressional notification about the aid funds stated that the aid would include "vehicles, fuel trucks and fuel bladders, ambulances, medical equipment, protective vests, binoculars, and non-secure radios" -- all items identified by the TNC as urgently needed to protect civilians from Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces in cities such as Misrata.

Clinton trumpted the aid as direct support to the rebel army when she "announced" it April 21, a day after the Washington Times first revealed the State Department's plan.

"One of the reasons why I announced $25 million in nonlethal aid yesterday, why many of our partners both in NATO and in the broader Contact Group are providing assistance to the opposition - is to enable them to defend themselves and to repulse the attacks by Qaddafi forces," Clinton said.

So what was the hold up? State Department spokesman Mark Toner said April 21 that the request, despite being approved by Clinton and sent to Congress, was not fully "cooked" and had not received White House approval.

Our sources tell a different story. Multiple sources said that the list of items and logistics for delivering the goods hadn't been worked out. The U.S. military doesn't actually land on Libya shores under the current operations scheme, so the goods have to be routed through third party carriers, which is costly. The heavier the items (trucks, for example), the costlier the delivery.

$25 million doesn't really go that far when delivery costs are accounted for, so the final shipment is likely to contain less military vehicles and more lightweight goods, such as medical equipment and blankets, our sources said. There's a realization that even then, the $25 million won't be enough to meet the needs of the Libyan rebels and the people they are protecting.

Separately, the U.S. government is sending millions of dollars in aid to Libya in the form of food, aid to international organizations, and money to help airlift migrants and refuges back to their homes.

State Department Policy Planning Director Jake Sullivan was asked about the delay in the approval of the funds at a Tuesday briefing. "Is there a problem?" he was asked. "Not that I'm aware of," he responded.

The Cable asked Sullivan if the reasons for the delay were the logistics but he said he didn't know. We also asked him if $25 million was really enough to help the rebel army.

"Do we need to put more than $25 million into Libya, this is something that we're constantly assessing," Sullivan said. "And obviously, the conversations that are happening in the run-up to the Rome Contact Group meeting about this temporary financial mechanism will involve consideration of what the United States has on offer in respect to assistance, and we're looking at that and will continue to do so."

The leader of Libya's National Transitional Council, Mahmud Jibril, was supposed to be in Washington today and tomorrow to meet with administration officials and senators, but was forced to postpone his trip at the last minute due to a cancelled flight.

"Dr Jibril's commercial flight to the United States was cancelled and he is unable to attend the meeting. We hope to reschedule in the near future," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) said in a statement. Jibril was scheduled to have coffee with SFRC members today.

Jibril was also set to meet with Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg, some Pentagon officials, and give a speech Friday at the Center for International and Strategic Studies. He was not scheduled to meet with any White House or National Security Council senior officials. On its website, CSIS said that Jibril plans to reschedule his trip to Washington for early May.

Jibril had been in Doha attending the first formal meeting of the Libya Contact Group, a broad array of international diplomats working to coordinate between the Libyan opposition and the rest of the world.

He was scheduled to leave for Washington from Bahrain on Wednesday evening, arriving early Thursday morning, but his flight was cancelled due to technical difficulties. Was there any other reason Jibril didn't come to Washington?

"We take it on face value that his travel complications were the reason for the cancellation and we hope to reschedule this important event," said H. Andrew Schwartz, senior vice president for external relations at CSIS.

But the missed opportunity to meet with American officials, lawmakers, and the D.C. foreign policy community comes at a crucial time for the Libyan opposition. The NATO allies are bitterly divided over how far the military intervention in Libya should go. France and the UK support expanding the air mission but not arming the rebels. Italy supports arming the rebels. Germany is opposed to both measures.

Meanwhile, Qaddafi forces are shelling the port and sniping innocent people in the city of Misrata and showing no signs of yielding to the pressure brought on by NATO airstrikes and international sanctions

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Berlin today dealing with this very issue. The NATO allies are divided on whether to increase the pace and scope of the airstrikes, whether to arm the rebels and whether to allow the rebels to use a portion of the billions of dollars from Qaddafi's coffers that is currently frozen in accordance with the U.N. Security Council resolutions.

"We are a sharing the same goal which is to see the end of the Qadhafi regime in Libya. And we are contributing in many ways in order to see that goal realized," she said just before her meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon said on Wednesday that U.S. planes are still flying attack missions over Libya despite the handing over of control to NATO last week. The Obama administration pledged to reduce the U.S. role to providing support.

In his speech to the nation March 18, President Obama said, "The United States will play a supporting role -- including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications."

The Defense Department's three-year-old Africa Command (AFRICOM) has been looking for a permanent home ever since it began operating out of its current location in Stuttgart, Germany. Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) revealed that the top contender to host AFRICOM is... Charleston, South Carolina!

"Secretary Gates, I've been told, has instructed the Department of Defense to look for a stateside home for Africa Command, to move you out of Stuttgart and that the leading contender, the most preferred site was Charleston Air Force Base," Graham said at today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on AFRICOM.

AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham said he wasn't aware that Gates had chosen Charleston as the lead contender, but said he liked Charleston all the same.

"Sir, I have visited Charleston and enjoyed that visit very much," said Ham.

"Good. We would like to have you," Graham responded, reassuring the general that Gates had, in fact, chosen Charleston and that the city was ready to provide the Defense Department with all the infrastructure assistance it would need to relocate AFRICOM to South Carolina.

For those tracking the numbers, AFRICOM's current headquarters in Stuttgart is about 800 miles from the closest point in Africa. Charleston is about 4,000 miles from the African continent.

Of course, AFRICOM wouldn't be the first combatant command to be headquartered outside of the region it covers. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which covers the broader Middle East, is located at MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa, Florida, although it has a huge forward operating base in Qatar. U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), which is responsible for South America and Central America, is located in Miami, relatively close to the region it covers.

But AFRICOM personnel shouldn't start packing their bags just yet. Last month, the Charleston Business Review reported that local business leaders had been told by the Pentagon that the final decision to relocate AFRICOM had been deferred indefinitely.

In other news from the hearing, Ham who was for 12 days running the U.S. intervention in Libya stated that a stalemate in the Libya war "is now more likely," than when the conflict began. "In my personal opinion, that is not the preferred solution," Ham said.

The NATO-led coalition is still attacking regime command-and-control assets in Tripoli and is engaged in an electronic warfare effort to keep the Libyan regime off of TV and radio, he said. He added that there is no effort to kill Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi, but if he happens to be killed, that's perfectly acceptable.

Ham also said that the United States is still flying combat missions over Libya and is still using the AC-130 close air support gunship to help the Libyan rebels, despite previous administration claims that those planes would be removed from the fight.

He also stressed that there must be some negotiated ceasefire.When asked how the war in Libya will end, Ham said, "Sir, I think it does not end militarily."

UPDATE: The Virginia Pilot reports that Virginia Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner confirmed that Charleston hasn't been chosen yet. They want AFRICOM  to be based in Norfolk, VA, where Joint Forces Command, which is being closed down by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Princeton Lyman, President Barack Obama's new special envoy to Sudan, left on Saturday for his first trip to the region since officially replacing Gen. Scott Gration, and the Sudan advocacy community could not be happier about the replacement.

"It's an excellent upgrade that will allow the U.S. to be even more effective," John Prendergast, CEO of the Enough Project, told The Cable. "Lyman has both of the ingredients that Gration lacked -- a deep understanding of regional politics and a long record of negotiating experience. Gration had neither of them when he took the job in 2009."

Gration, who had multiple run-ins with both top Obama administration officials and advocates in the Sudan community, will probably be remembered for what some considered a naïve approach toward the brutal Sudanese regime, notably when he said that "gold stars" and "cookies" could be used to affect positive change in Khartoum. Gration has been appointed ambassador to Kenya, and Tuesday he testifies at a hearing that will mark the beginning of what's sure to be a difficult Senate confirmation process.

Obama met with Lyman at the White House on April 1 to congratulate him on the appointment and talk over the road ahead.

"During the meeting, the President outlined his serious concerns over the situation in Abyei and the impact that increased bombings are having on civilians in Darfur," according to a White House read out of the meeting. "The President underscored his commitment to the establishment of two viable states in northern and South Sudan in July. They discussed the urgency of all parties joining the new opportunities in the Doha Peace Process and of elevating the level of international engagement on Darfur."

Lyman will first travel to Ethiopia to participate in talks regarding implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and security arrangements along the border between the two countries. Those talks are being facilitated by the African Union's High-Level Implementation Panel. He will then travel to Khartoum, where he will meet with Sudanese leaders on North-South political issues. Finally, he will travel back to Ethiopia for meetings of the "economic cluster groups," who deal with oil, debt, and other non-security issues. Meanwhile, his senior advisor Dane Smith is set to travel to Doha for the next round of talks on the situation in Darfur.

There are only three months left before the CPA's "interim period" runs out and Sudan will officially split into two countries, following the January referendum, in which the south overwhelmingly voted in favor of separation. But the situation on the ground is reportedly getting worse as the northern government masses its forces near the oil-rich region of Abyei, whose final status is far from settled.

"Troubling is too light a word for what's going on in Abyei," said Prendergast. "The concentration of armor and artillery is a violation of the CPA and the amassing of ground forces indicates that major military action is imminent."

Lyman's first order of business as special envoy is, "to prevent that from happening and secure the wider deal on border, citizenship and other issues" Prendergast said. "That's going to be the biggest priority."

Back at the State Department, a reorganization of Gration's office is also underway. We're told that plans are being put in place to integrate the Office of the Special Envoy for Sudan back into the African Affairs bureau (AF) led by Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson.

On a conference call with advocacy leaders last week, Lyman said he was looking to add additional staff  to his team to address issues related to the relationship between north and south Sudan, but no decisions had been made as of yet.

The Libyan rebels' representative in Washington, Ali Aujali, called on the United States to stay at the fore of the international effort to oust Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi and to give the opposition leadership weapons and access to billions in frozen Libyan assets.

"The United States is the major player in this crisis. We want the administration and we want your support to keep the role of the United States alive. We want American to be involved," Aujali said at the Center for American Progress on Monday. Aujali previously served as Qaddafi's ambassador to Washington before joining the opposition in February. "For the United States to continue to be a major player in this crisis, this is very important."

He said he understood the domestic considerations in the United States, but insisted that the Obama administration still had a huge role to play in supporting the armed resistance to Qaddafi and continuing aid to Libya's civilian population.

"It will change a lot the image of the United States in the Arab and Muslim world. People will see Americans not only go because they have interests, they go to support freedom, they go to support people who are willing to die for their cause," he said. "This is a great achievement for American foreign policy."

Aujali called on the Obama administration to recognize the National Transitional Council, which is based in Benghazi, as Italy did today. He also called on the international community to give the council access to assets of the Qaddafi regime that were frozen as part of U.N. Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973.

"If we don't have access to the money, that's a serious problem," he said.

The Libyan opposition has been in contact with the State Department and the Treasury Department to press their case for control of the funds, Aujali said. "It may just be a matter of time, but time means more killing of the Libya people, more suffering, shortages of food and water... We have to move fast if we want to save the Libyan people from this massacre."

Aujali said that he had met with several lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), John Kerry (D-MA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and others.

Aujali's basic demands mirrored those in his March 31 op-ed in the Washington Post. "If you want the opposition to achieve victory on the ground then we need to help them. They need training, they need armament, they need political support."

He claimed that the Qaddafi regime is collapsing from the inside, and made clear that the Libya people will never strike any deal with Qaddafi that would keep  any member of his family in power, as his son Seif al-Islam has reportedly suggested. Aujali also denied reports that there are deep divisions within the opposition.

"There is not a split among the council or among the military leadership at all," he said.

Overall, Aujali's message was that the Libyan rebels will never stop fighting until the entire Qaddafi family is gone from power and, while the no-fly zone is helpful, the international community must not stop there.

"If Qaddafi stays behind, not only will the Libyans be victimized. All of us will be victims. It is time for us now to get rid of this man. It's time for us to give Libyans a chance to rule themselves," he said. "The Libyans have the right to dream. And they are prepared to die."