AP FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya Claims Fit the Facts: (They can't even cover for him anymore!)

Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce2a1b4d3b56.jpg[/atsimg]

WASHINGTON — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces. In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated. More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara. The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S. Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands." He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

Source: www.newsmax.com...

Hell, even the AP can't take Obama's B.S. anymore. They are ripping him apart in this piece AS IT SHOULD.

Personally, I knew once Obama started moving his lips he was fibbing/lying. And, if he isn't out right lying, he's trying to blow smoke up places the Sun don't shine!

Can we be honest about this fool, seriously. I saw it is time to March on D.C. and force this PUTZ out of office!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43ced8ed1e60.jpg[/atsimg]

So what happens if Barry is removed? Which puppet do you think will take his place?

Thanks for posting yet another reality check!! I found his vague speech to be quite disturbing and it served to create more questions than were actually answered. Mixed messages abound!!

Glad we are now officially backing Islamic extremists and Al-Qaida sympathizers.

No plan yet regarding just how Gaddafi will be removed from power. That man will never give up power without throwing everything he has at his opposition then he will burn everything that is left behind. If he can't have it, no one else can either.

Obama has just ensured his position as a one term wonder.

sad day indeed, we finally removed the turd-Bush, and received a full bowl movement-obama

a bum off the streets could do a better job as they could not read from a telepromter and might yet have a soul

Well Obama did get it right when he said 'we will act towards our own interests and values'. This does not make him any better an international citizen as he has totally disregarded the African Union and even the Arab League is calling for a back down of military intervention.

this is just sad people are dying eveywhere. didnt they say alot of people are gonnna die in north korea because they dont have food. people fleeing the ivory coast but hey they have no oil. at first i thought there has to be some other reason but now im sure it oil.

I found this article by Pat Buchanan to be rather interesting.

But before George H.W. Bush went to war to liberate Kuwait and George W. Bush took us to war against Iraq, each went to Congress and got roll-call votes authorizing those wars.

Obama worked the phones to get the approval of 10 of 15 members of the Security Council, but not Russia, China, Germany, India or Brazil. He then sought the benediction of the Arab League, which reveals much about where Obama thinks real moral authority in this world resides.

The president described his reasoning: "(W)hen innocent people are being brutalized; when someone like Gadhafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region; and when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives -- then it's in our national interest to act. And it's our responsibility."

But if Obama's U.N. mandate was to "protect civilians" in besieged Benghazi, why did we put a Tomahawk cruise missile down the chimney of Gadhafi's compound, 600 miles away?

What is Obama's message?

Saturday, Ajdabiya fell to the rebels after U.S. planes pulverized its defenders. If civilians were in danger in Ajdabiya, it was because of a rebel attack that could not have been mounted had U.S. planes not conducted air strikes on tanks and troops defending the town.

What civilians were we protecting in Ajdabiya -- or Brega and Ras Lanuf, all of which fell over the weekend?

A time for truth. U.S. intervention prevented Gadhafi victories in a campaign to crush an insurgency. We have since destroyed his air force and smashed his armor and decimated his ground forces to demoralize and cripple his army until its officers realize they cannot survive weeks of U.S. bombing -- and they move to remove or kill him.

America is fighting the rebels' war.

So the questions arise that were never answered when Obama ignored Congress to start his war. Who are these rebels, some of whom belong to al-Qaida, as others show their hatred of Gadhafi by smearing his posters with a Star of David?

When we win the rebels' war for them, whom do we put in power? Who is our Hamid Karzai?

What allied troops come to occupy Libya?

Where are Obama's anti war supporters on this topic??

Is Libya the dress rehearsal for Syria and Iran?

Neocons could not be giddier. Weekly Standard editor William Kristol is ebullient: "Despite his doubts and dithering, President Obama is taking us to war in another Muslim country. Good for him."

Perhaps. But will bloodying another Muslim country be good for America?

townhall.com...

We are in deep !@#$. What has Obama done?

I will leave this where Buchanan began

In ordering air and naval strikes on a country that neither threatened nor attacked the United States, did President Obama commit an impeachable act?

So it would seem. For the framers of the Constitution were precise. The power to declare war is entrusted solely to Congress.

From King William's War to Queen Anne's War to King George's War to the Seven Years' War, the colonists had had their fill of royal wars. To no principle were they more committed than that the power to declare war must be separate from the power to wage it.

And Obama usurped that power.

His defenders argue that under the War Powers Act he can wage war for 60 days before going to Congress. But that applies only if the president is responding to an attack or has determined that the nation is under imminent threat.

Any Obama defenders care to comment? Seems like they have been distracted by Donald Trump's call to Obama lately. (oops! I guess that's my fault for posting some of those threads) I haven't seen them lurking around the LIbyan threads. Hmmm.

Originally posted by rogerramjett
So what happens if Barry is removed? Which puppet do you think will take his place?

That's an easy question. If Obama were to resign from office or be removed, the next in line would be the vice president Joe Biden. If Joe Biden were to get in office...what would change? Not a thing.

reply to post by anon72


Great post. I'm so sick of listening to the same crowd which railed against the Iraq / Afghanistan Invasion and called Bush a war criminal sit here and praise Obama. He initiated unauthorized offensive military action. The constitution is very clear on this. He is in violation of U.S. law, the constitution and previous precedent. Our president is not our supreme ruler. He is not the #1 guy in the government. He does not have the ultimate, final veto power over everything. He has committed the same atrocities as Bush and should be strung up right next to him in the same slimy, dirty back room they executed Saddam in. How long are we going to fool ourselves into believing that our leaders are so much better than the 3rd world's dictators? We used to be a country of insurgents and cowboys and revolutionaries and freedom fighters. Now we are a country of bootlickers and butt kissers. The media won't even fart without approval from the White House. Real journalism gets bought out and beaten down. No one has the guts to stand up and say "hey! isn't this what the last guy did?! didn't we vote for this new guy because he said specifically that he wasn't going to be like the last guy? weren't we pissed ten years ago?!"

reply to post by MrWendal


theoretically, you are correct, but if the American people rose up and demanded that a leader be removed from power, then the next guy is more apt to not do whatever pissed the people off in the first place. Our government is meant to be a series of controlled revolutions, one leader gets "thrown out" when his term's up and another is installed. We are technically capable of throwing one after the next out of office until we get one we like. But that would actually require effort, action and thought on the part of the American people, which MSM has all but guaranteed will not happen.

reply to post by anon72


Really nicely put together thread, Anon. Appreciate the effort. Perhaps my question is being put in the wrong thread here, but I am hoping someone out there can answer it. I thought this 'intervention' was to impose a no-fly zone in the area. What now should we be thinking about this??

U.S. aircraft have fired at a Libyan coast guard vessel that launched missiles at merchant ships in the port city of Misrata, military officials said Tuesday.

A P-3C Maritime Patrol aircraft fired at the Vittoria after multiple explosions were seen near the port Monday evening. The 12-metre patrol vessel had to be beached.

A U.S. Air Force official said an A-10 Thunderbolt also fired on two smaller vessels, destroying one and forcing the other to be abandoned, said the statement from Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, which is providing operational and tactical command of U.S. military forces supporting the response to unrest in Libya.

CBC.ca sourced article

I heard one little blip about this on CNN early this morning and then nothing since. Even in a google search this was just about the only written article I could find on it that had any kind of credibility. Since when could Libyian coast guard vessels fly?? (Or any other country's coast guard vessel) I understand the whole "but we are protecting civilian lives" bit, but I see this as going way beyond the boundries of being there on the sole basis of setting up a no-fly zone.

reply to post by jibeho



Your replys are always top notch but I have to say this one here is the best of I seen from you yet.

Great info, thanks.

I just saw your thread on Trump/Obama & the Birth Cert matter. Awesome also.

We have to keep the pressure on the clown and company. I think we are all making a difference-collectively with our efforts to expose Obama and his pals.

reply to post by RicoMarston


I would have to agree with you here. This is also a violation of the war powers act. Obama claims that he spoke to a bipartisan group in congress but the reality is that he didn't really notify the whole congress about it within 48 hours. Liberals are saying as an excuse that people were too busy trying to defund NPR, but, if you think about it if Obama really had no excuse to do it. That, and to make matters worse on March 22nd on his website he has a video of him interviewing people about what they think about health-care reform. So it shows you where his priorities are and not with the US constitution.

What I find disturbing is the lack of a mission.

We can argue all day about the grounds for war with Iraq and Afghanistan, but there was a pretty clear mission and objective in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure - there were issues regarding translating the strategic goals to tactical commands - but that is part of any operation, military or otherwise.

Why are we there? What are we there to do? Or are we -really- there?

When we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, we were committed - there wasn't any question, we were in for the long haul.

While the outcome will be completely different - this is reminiscent of the Vietnam Police Action. We're fighting... but not against the established Government. We're there to promote democracy, but not going to change anything. We're sending in troops, but not invading.

The circumstances are simply too different for this to become another Vietnam - but it's already turning into another geopolitical burden. You can't go in and blow up a country's government in support of a rebellion and then -not- help establish the new government. And then you have problems with "who are the rebels, anyway" to add.

It's a complete mess. While no O-plan ever survives initial contact with the enemy - the man is devoid of the capacity to form strategic plans and too arrogant to staff -and utilize- competent personnel to fulfill the necessary functions of the Office. What he doesn't micromanage he completely ignores.

Most inept person we've ever had head the Executive Branch... as though it were a senate office.

reply to post by anon72


The Wars Powers Act of 1973 Is considered Unconstitutional by Most Constitutional Scholars . Here is a Link to an Article that explains WHY in Detail ........


www.fed-soc.org...