The President's Speech on Libya

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Click to expand...

The Prof said:

the neocons are ecstatic, congrats

Bill Kristol

Click to expand...

Dr_Patrick said:

When you have legitimate arguments against someone and then mix it in with partisan rhetoric, the legitimate arguments kind of get lost in the noise.

Click to expand...

BILL KRISTOL: He came to me to make sure I was supporting his sound policies. Of course, since his sound policies are more like the policies people like me have been advocating for quite a while, I’m happy to support them. He’s a born-again neo-con."

Click to expand...

Host Greg Gutfeld asked Kristol how he felt about Obama coming to him for help (reportedly the president had met with him and others prior to his Monday night address).

“He didn’t come to me for help, of course,” Kristol said. “I’m not going to acknowledge that. He came to me to make sure I was supporting his sound policies. Of course, since his sound policies are more like the policies people like me have been advocating for quite a while, I’m happy to support them. He’s a born-again neo-con.”

Throughout 2007 and 2008 in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama ran as the anti-war candidate. But Obama has taken on different stripes with this gesture, Kristol joked.

“What’s the joke – they told me if I voted for McCain, we’d be going to war in a third Muslim country?” Kristol said. “I voted for McCain and we’re doing it.”

Click to expand...

“Now, let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein,” said Obama in his speech. “He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.”

"... After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again," said Obama. "I don't oppose all wars. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Obama argued that deposing Saddam militarily was not necessary, because Iraq posed no “direct threat” to the United States. “But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

Click to expand...

Despite President Barack Obama's major speech on the Libyan campaign on Monday, these Democrats - Reps. Barbara Lee (Calif.), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Mike Honda (Calif.), Lynn Woolsey (Calif.) and Raul Grijalva (Ariz.) - want Boehner and Cantor to schedule a debate and floor vote on the issue.

"Consideration of the President's continued military engagement in Libya is our responsibility as elected representatives in the U.S. Congress, and essential to reasserting the undisputed role and responsibility of the Legislative Branch in overseeing and providing for our nation's commitments while at war," the Democrats wrote in a letter that will go out Wednesday night.

"The United States has now been engaged militarily in Libya since March 19, 2011. While we firmly believe that a robust debate and up-or-down floor vote should have occurred in advance of U.S. military action in Libya, it is without question that such measures are still urgently required. Beyond defending Congressional authority in these matters, these deliberations are essential to ensuring that we as a country fully debate and understand the strategic goals, costs, and long-term consequences of military action in Libya."

The Democrats added: "It is our position that the President has a constitutional obligation to seek specific, statutory authorization for offensive military action, as he should have done with regard to U.S. military engagement in Libya. We look forward to working with you to address this matter on the House floor as soon as possible."

Click to expand...

"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Click to expand...

The Prof said:

Fact Check: Obama's Libya Speech/AP

ouch!

maybe obama shouldn't have pissed off ap so much over those stonewalled foia's

ap's fact check of obama's speech:

he says he's turning things over to nato, but we're nato

he says aid to the rebels is defensive, not offensive

obama's citation of america's "unique capabilities" means a long and vital engagement

obama points to some canadian general who's sposed to be in command, but the regional boss is an american in naples, and the supreme allied commander must by charter be red, white and blue

obama wants us to believe our mission is "narrow," but ap finds it expanding, worries about mission creep, proclaims the endgame unclear and specifically points to the use of low flying aircraft as signal of escalation

obama says the mission is to protect civilian life, ap views his actions as more strategically oriented

he claims he owns constitutional authority to do this but even the ASSOCIATED PRESS throws his dumb december declaration in his dithering face



can you deny it?

Click to expand...

Fiddytree said:

I explained earlier that there are differences of opinion.

Click to expand...

ric27 said:

Why are we in Libya again? I thought it was about a No Fly zone, but now we are providing air support and Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces

This whole thing is retarded.

Click to expand...

Ron Mars said:

0bama said the reasons are to stop Gaddafi from killing civilians and force Gaddafi to leave.

I think those are worthy reasons.

Click to expand...

Ron Mars said:

0bama said the reasons are to stop Gaddafi from killing civilians and force Gaddafi to leave.

I think those are worthy reasons.

Click to expand...

American said:

No, not good reasons. Obama is lying anyway, if he felt those reasons were good ones, he would have support the war in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Ron Mars said:

I believe the reasons are noble and I certainly hope 0bama doesn't go wobbly on us.

Click to expand...

Libya, France Sign ‘Declaration of Intent’
24/10/2010 22:07:00
Tripoli-Libya and France signed on Thursday a Declaration of Intent aims to establish a 'strategic partnership' between the two countries in various fields.

The declaration called for the activation of the 5+5 dialogue as to be able to influence regional policies, broadening its scope and promoting the fight against illegal immigration.

The declaration was signed by Secretary of Industry, Economy, Trade and Investment Mr. Mohammed Hawaij and France's Industry Minister Christian Estrosi.

The strategic partnership includes the construction of a nuclear power plant in Libya. The document provides for bilateral talks prior to the signing of an accord between the Libyan Nuclear Energy Authority and the French Atomic Energy Agency. This will facilitate the establishment of a nuclear legislation and the conduct of studies necessary for the building a nuclear power plant.

A team from the French Atomic Energy Agency will visit Libya for the implementation of a program for capacity building and plans to construct the nuclear power plant.

Hawaij invited, after the signing ceremony, invited French companies wishing to invest in Libya's industrial areas to do so in such a way that companies from both countries will be able to market their products in either nation.

Estrosi arrived in the Libyan capital on board a new Airbus passenger jet, one of a consignment of aircraft which the company is contracted to supply to state-owned carrier Libyan Airlines.

Click to expand...

ric27 said:

Ron - You have to come to the conclusion that we AREN'T all alike, we DON'T have the same motivations and desires, and that our belief that a democratic/republic form of government is best, is egocentric and frankly, not supported by history

Japan didn't understand our culture and as a consequence, they started a war they couldn't win. We didn't act according to their culture and didn't follow their expectations. The majority of Americans really don't understand other cultures very well (in some respects) and fail to recognize democracy is not compatible with some cultures and religious beliefs. At least not in their current configuration. To make a viable, western style democracy work in the Arab world we have to destroy their culture and replace it with a new one that is compatible with democracy. If most of them like their culture and their way of life, where do we get the idea that we have a right to tear it up just because we think ours is better? Where do we get the right to do something to somebody against their will, "For their own good"?

That notion goes against our core concepts of freedom and self determination. Self determination doesn't mean the right to decide your own course and fate so long as we agree with it. Only when their course is a threat to us and we have to do something in self defense do we have the right to interfere with another culture/nation.

Click to expand...