Obama: 'I Refused' To Let A Massacre Happen In Libya

Source: Talking Points Memo

President Obama delivered a clear and determined defense of his decision to authorize U.S. military-led air strikes in Libya, stressing that he could not allow an impending massacre in the country to occur but would not use military might to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi from power.

The speech, delivered Monday night, was cloaked in broad statements about American values and U.S. responsibilities to support democratic movements against brutal and repressive regimes.

"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and -- more profoundly -- our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," he told a crowd of military leaders gathered at the National Defense University at Ft. McNair in Washington, D.C. "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."

Obama highlighted the success of the U.S. and allied mission so far in halting the advance of loyalist forces on the city of Benghazi, where Qaddafi had pledged to crush the rebels and go door-to-door pulling people from their closets, and in averting a humanitarian crisis.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/obama-i-refused-to-let-a-massacre-in-libya-happen.php?ref=fpblgee

job tonight. He gave reasons for our involvement in Libya, made the case for it, and explained it very well. I'm really sick of the Obama bashing I read more and more often on DU.

They spend most of their time fighting each other.

Right?

I don't know how she does it.
It's incredible.
When I get down in the dumps, I come here for some "kpete" and it gets me through the day.

Two elections Democrats won, and decisively.

The fact is, families fight but it doesn't stop them from coming to your aid. And we're one big family.

it was not a stellar performance for the democrats.

'visitors' that keep popping in to fan the flames.

that way, at least we will know what the look like :crazy:

Or the contempt for entire world?

sense of right or wrong. Especially explanations from politicians. It just looks silly to blindly accept everything we are told without applying common sense to it; for instance, I have a hard time justifying spending millons of dollars on missles to destroy parts of Libya, then learn from Obama's speech that the intent wasn't to get rid of Gadhafi. Wasn't Gadhafi the one behind the threats posed to destroy Libyans?

I'm not getting the reason for the costly bombing while, don't forget, we Americans have been told there's no money in our budget for vital programs for the most vulnerable citizens. And the GOP has its sights on Social Security & Medicare -- they're calling these employee-funded savings accounts "entitlements", for heaven's sake -- while Obama believes in "reaching across the aisle" instead of governing the way he led us to believe he would during his campaign speeches.

If something doesn't make sense, we should always question it.

Obama did point out that getting rid of Gadhafi would involve ground troops and it could potentially turn into Iraq(remember the "8 years, trillion dolloars, and x amount of lives" or something like that. He's said in his speech that he's trying to avoid another Iraq.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm assuming you'll be around long enough to respond.

& started two wars for profit.

I'll say this about Obama: He's a good man who, I believe, is being pressured by the same war-for-profit neocons. I don't think he is enjoying having to use military action, unlike the boy king who divided this country with we're going to smoke 'em out and you're either with us or against us rhetoric. Now there's a less-than-zero character who clearly enjoyed the blood spilled for oil. And ol' Osama bin forgotten's still hasn't been smoked out.

the "impending massacre". Al least with the Saddam's WMDs there was some, however faulty, intelligence to justify the war.
This one is based on pure propaganda - Qaddaffi is a murderous psychopath hell-bent on massacring his own people,
no intelligence is even needed to back up that claim, that's, like, common knowledge. What a useless lying liar Obama is.
The best of all, unlike with Saddam's WMDs, this lie is impossible to disprove. How does one prove that Qaddafi is not a
murderous psychopath hell-bent on massacring his own people? He, probably, beats his wife too. That's what I call a
"slam dunk". If that was the justification Bush used against Saddam, how far would it fly then? Hunamitarian-shnumanitarian,
fool me once - shame on you, fool me twice ... How many times will they do it? How stupid do they think we are?
Take your stinking lies and go play golf with your rich buddies and take your nobel Peace Prize medal with you, should be
good for a few laughs.

CIA office to look over the shoulders of the agents assigned to gathering the info. It was said when news of those visits got out that a vice ptesident's visits to the CIA offices was unprecedented. Former CIA agent Larry Johnson & two other retired CIA agents testified before a congressional hearing that then-current agents were complaining that they were being pressured by Cheney to get the intelligence to fit what he wanted.

:eyes:

at least the "intelligence" that Bush used to depose Saddam was (dis)provable, and it was proven to be false after the fact.
Obama's war comes from pure propaganda which can never be dis/proven. At least Bush/Cheney cared enough to invent
some verifiable reason to justify their war, Obama doesn't even afford that little respect to American people.

the 8-year Bush/Cheney regime knows that they didn't care about anything except for holding on to power & keeping themselves out of prison.

Which leads to the reason they "cared" enough to lie to the UN & to congress with their contrived intelligence: it was so early into their pResidency they didn't yet have all their (il)legal justifications in place; for one example, the Patriot Act wasn't in the picture yet.

It's disturbing that you seem to be giving Bush & Cheney excuses, as though they meant well & that their reasons for invading Iraq were a noble cause compared to Obama's. I just don't have the time to give you 8 years' worth of reasons why that attitude is so out of touch.

I see that you're new here; where did you spend your time during the Bush regime, & what were your sources for information?

Fool Count, be honest. That was straight up bullshit...there was NO "intelligence," faulty or otherwise, that justified the Iraq war. In the aftermath of that brazen overstep of authority, I lost one of the best friends I've ever known...to bullshit "intelligence" that most of the world KNEW was wrong. So the idea that Iraq wasn't based on straight-up propaganda is your own wish, not reality.

Go blow smoke somewhere else with your theory. I'm not buying.

in its essence a verifiable one? That it was verified and found to be wrong after the fact?
Or that Obama's rationale for Libya intervention can't even pretend to be that? Theory-shmeory,
that's just an obvious fact.

Do you have anything substantial to add?

... and yes even other oppressive regimes. If only those other poor people were sitting on huge reserves of oil like the poor Libyans are.

Pretty speech, too bad that the West has no moral higher ground to stand on this one. Because if we're going to be consistent, Bush and Blair we should face the fact that for example are responsible for more "brown" people getting killed than Gadaffi. So I am sure Obama will not let them go unpunished right? Oh, wait...

At this time in history, the US has no credibility and should not be believed when they give their reason for attacking another oil rich country.

But he cautioned against repeating the same type of mistake of forcing regime change as the U.S. tried in Iraq eight years ago, only to commit U.S. troops to a bloody and costly war and a country still trying to stabilize itself.

Underling mine----..."mistake of forcing regime change..." OK but in the next paragraph (below) says that he and other world leaders have embraced that goal! Are we not aiding and abetting those bringing about regime change? And what's with pursuing regime change by non-military means? Aren't missile strikes military?

"Of course, there is no question that Libya -- and the world -- will be better off with Qaddafi out of power," he said. "I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"If tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air," he said. "The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next."

How can the President pretend we are not using force? Someone, enlighten me!! I'm totally baffled.

and don't complain. You asked for it. Don't call this a threat it is a reality.

as double speak...sorry...it doesn't make sense to me. If I have these questions don't you think the right wing will too?

That quaint little 'threat' stopped being effective three weeks ago

GET WITH THE PROGRAM

:grr:

PsyWars: Wake Up! :-(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXg70qJQ6O0

watch it. Thanks for the link!

Reminds me of the documentary "The Century of the Self."
Have you seen that?

For some reason I can't post the link!

You can search it though and watch it for free
@ http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self

I suppose you could cut and paste from this post too.

BHN

On edit: Never mind, I see the link works.
Wonder why I couldn't copy and paste it???
I had to type it in...:wtf:

:yourock:

Thanks for the link! Definitely worth the time!

I embrace the change of Administration and National Assembly in this country (Korea).
But, I'm not going to organize a mob to make it happen using violence.

As to the use of force. He's not pretending we aren't using some force. The force was used to protect civilians in Benghazi against a massacre. He is saying he won't use force to topple the Libtan Government.

Obama is separating the issues of using offensive military action or force to literally overthrow Gaddafi, ie; U.S. invasion of ground troops, or deliberately targeting Gaddafi for assassination from that of using military action to defend the opposition from being massacred with the goal of Gaddafi abdicating to a democratic process and probably seeking asylum.

They've even mentioned elements of Gaddafi's government as being allowed to participate in any new government as an enticement.

I believe if Gaddafi were smart, he would take up Uganda's offer of asylum or perhaps some other nation and leave Libya for the Libyan People to use their own self-determination in choosing their government.

are those other countries where real atrocites and genecides are taking place not worth it? and those countries do not even have rebels fighting back. Since we never interferred in such countries, I can not see your reasoning on this issue.

the people aren't protected? Leaving Gadhafi in power will justify the bombing?

:crazy:

And there is support from the UN and Arab countries.

I recommend looking it up on youtube for those that did't catch it.

Just curious.

At $500k+ per bomb x 100 bombs dropped, yet the "danger" remains in his fortress.

And because Libya was bombed, it'll cost billions more to replace the destruction. Who's getting the bill for that?

"We're broke."

it will leave the regime-change hard-liners currently taking up rhetorical arms in both the conservative and liberal camps very unhappy. "Sole humanitarian" Human Rights activists are going to be extremely un-reassured by such an outcome as well, don't you think?

Regardless of the outcome he'll be a net loser for getting involved.

War is the only game in which both sides lose. Walter Scott.

Better than the hyperbole from some of his supporters and people who oppose this action.

Go ahead and tell the truth, Mr. President.

BP has no production in Libya at the moment, but the company has started an exploratory drilling programme in the west of the North African nation. This work was suspended following the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, last month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8389397/BPs-contracts-in-Libya-still-valid-despite-turmoil.html

to refuse the "bank massacre" in THIS country!

and I trust this effort will play out the way intended --

and no other way!!

Obama: 'I Refused' To Let A Massacre Happen In Libya ... Without My Help

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security -- so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements), and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future. Al Qaeda qualifies under this standard, and we can and should carry out strikes against them wherever we can. Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not meet this standard, which is why our invasion was such a strategic blunder."

Barack Obama in "The Audacity of Hope" (pp. 308-9).

No, is the answer you're looking for.

Or the other 40 some odd nations that joined the "multinational force-Iraq"; furthermore, in the recent aftermath of 9-11, Bush had more justification to go into Iraq than Obama has to go into Libya. Preventing a massacre of Libyans? Give me a fucking break. That is a preemptive war carried out in the absence of ANY credible threat to the US. Qaddafi actually got rid of his WMDs and invited UN inspectors to verify. If Bush had done this, he would have been crucified over little details like this but Obama gets a free pass? I don't fucking think so. I am dead set opposed to using our military for utter BS like this. I don't care who is doing it.

Most people are familiar with the idea of subliminal messages but there is also a method of putting messages in in such an obvious way that they don't stand out (eg. superliminal messages).

Monday night 3/29/11, Obama:
"I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people,..."

In the same carefully written, albeit totally confused, speech, he admitted that the bombing of Libya was part of
"maintaining the flow of commerce" and "to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power".

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/politics/29prexy-text.html?_r=1&ref=africa&pagewanted=all

They were lifted from Samantha Power's: A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Not saying that's a bad thing. ;-)

However - to 'exalt' this we need to be at the UN stating that: This is Genocide. It doesn't mean other countries HAVE to act. (the word genocide was uttered by Bush in re: Darfur a few years back and ignored). It does mean that maybe for the first time in history? A major power is going to stop a blood letting we know is going to happen?

And so now what does this mean . . . Looking at the tenuous situation in Ivory Coast - is I.C. next?

Corporate warmongering asshole. I will not vote for this clown ever again.

Way to go, b....

Uh, Mr. pResident...

If he won't allow such things to occur that means he feels personally responsible for them.

In which case he has allowed quite a few massacres to be carried out that he did nothing to prevent.

Can't be a global policeman only when it suits you.

All or nothing.

Thanks, warmongering members of DU, for proving once again that cognitive dissonance is stronger than reason.