Full prepared remarks of President Obama's Address to the Nation on Libya

[coma]

Broad minded people will find this artical an interesting read. Fellow American Ted Carpenter, with great credentials, has hit the nail on the head.

http://news.xinhuane.../c_13794055.htm

Enjoy the read if you dare. I did.

Another point of view on your 'Experts' background in the Cato Institute.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cato.html

Not all agree they are what they want us to think they are, or are for.

Interesting. It does not stop the fact that what he is saying will sound off alarm bells even to the most ignorant of individuals. Cuz he is correct in what he is saying in theis situation. :jap:

[luckizuchinni]

WARMONGER : Asked about the rebel ceasefire offer, White House spokesman Jay Carney appeared to indicate that the administration of US President Barack Obama does not want the conflict in Libya to end with Gaddafi still in power

Nothing in the UN mandate about this is there ????????????? It is infact a personnal issue that the US has with GaddafiIn Washington,

Carney said: "The president's position is that Muammar Gaddafi is no longer fit to lead, he has lost legitimacy in the eyes of his people and the world.

It is not his position that Gaddafi should stay in power "

How do you know that? Have you spoke to the apparent large amount of pro Gaddafi citizens ????

And it is NOT your position to decide if Gaddafi should stay in power or not.It is that of the Libyan people.

"We believe that the Libyan people no longer want Gaddafi to remain in power as the leader of Libya" he said.

If this was the case there would be no ongoing civil war you fool.

At the western entrance to Ajdabiya, 54-year-old reservist and rebel Abdelkarim Mansouri explained: We're implementing a new tactic. We don't want any more kids to die. War is not a game These are the orders of the military council.

Is this news to the rebels? War is not a game? Sending kids off to fight, some of them will inevitabley die.

Look I am against the US being involved in Libya, but goodness, you are really going off the deep end here. So what if Obama thinks Gaddafi should not remain in power? What has that to do with the UN mandate? That is his opinion, and as such, the opinion of his administration.

And do you really think he is just saying that in a vacuum? Of course he's getting reports, and even a simpleton can see that at least some Libyans don't want Gadaffi in power anymore.

I have to stress that I don't want the US in Libya, but Obama's remarks are nothing remarkable. He is just stating his opinion, and all this hate and consternation calling him a liar and such is just plain laughable.

He is just stating his opinion you say ??? Very strange way of looking at it considering he gave his consent to military intervention which has killed more Libyans. Libyans that live on the other side of the world to the White House. Opinions are words and do not hurt anybody. Acting as he has on his opinions does hurt people. And he is GUILTY as charged your honor.

I take it you have never been on a formal debate team?

Just to say something is so doesn't make it so. You actually have to back it up.

Read the words as quoted. This is all opinion from the Obama administration. Not fact nor policy. Not once did he promise to remove Gaddafi. He just said he didn't think Gaddafi should be in power.

What Obama has done is to authorize American forces to contribute to the UN mandate. And that mandate does not authorize the removal of Gaddafi. Yes, Obama's opinion is that Gadaffi should not be in power, but so far, he has put that opinion in action.

I actually agree that the US should have kept clear of this mess. But to make silly and illogical arguments does not help the cause and rather opens up all intelligent debate on keeping out of it to ridicule. FOr those beating the war drums in earnest, well, I think they are wrong, but I would rather see reasonable arguments to back that up, not silly tricks ('if you dare") nor goofy arguments.

[coma]

Check link in post 128 if you would. What is in that article is exactly what I believe is what is going on. And I stress, What I believe.

The US administration, IMO, are blatantly conducting " backdoor operations". It would be nieve to believe otherwise.

[luckizuchinni]

Check link in post 128 if you would. What is in that article is exactly what I believe is what is going on. And I stress, What I believe.

The US administration, IMO, are blatantly conducting " backdoor operations". It would be nieve to believe otherwise.

Could be. I hope not, but could be. I certainly do not want to get involved in a prolonged civil war there.

However, to be honest, I would rather be conducting "back door" operations than going the military route.

Edited April 2, 2011 by luckizuchinni

[luckizuchinni]

Aside from the expense, the consternation, and the risk of an escalation, I particularly fear success. If the rebels force out Gadaffi, just who are they? Nothing leads me to believe that they will be friends of the West. We don't need another Iran or Taliban there.

[coma]

Aside from the expense, the consternation, and the risk of an escalation, I particularly fear success. If the rebels force out Gadaffi, just who are they? Nothing leads me to believe that they will be friends of the West. We don't need another Iran or Taliban there.

I agree 100%. The allied HUMINT on the ground there has already identified Al Qaeda operatives amongst the ranks of the rebels. I am sure they are not there to assist in establishing a western styled and backed democracy there. This point is particulary frightening and knowing Arabs the way I do,I can almost bet to my last penny that any rebel government that maybe established in the future will ultimatley turn not so friendly towards their ' liberators' as is the case in many other Arabs countries. This may sound a little harsh but needs to be said, Unfortunatley some parts of our world need to be governed with a firm hand. Sad but i believe it to be true. :jap:

[Robby nz]

\

a column of 10 Russian-made BM 21 Grad multiple rocket-launchers heading for Brega on Thursday night.

OMG how'd Russian weapons get to Libya Robbie nz insists its the Americans that provided all the weapons.

You really do twist things around dont you Gerry.

I never made any such claim.

But I must first off apologise to you for assuming you as the most ardent supporter of the US are a US citizen, must have been terribly embarrasing for you, sorry.

I guess it is just my hatred of international greed, corruption and the attacking of other countries on little pretext (while standing back well away from danger) that makes me post on topics like this and when I see other posters trying to justify the actions of those who call themselves an international community in bombing and killing in another country where they have no right to be it only makes it worse.

I see from some unmentionable news reports that the rebel forces in Libya are now on the back foot and retreating, this will be the cause of their 'cease fire' offer that apparantly includes half the country being given to them.

I wonder when I see on Tele the rebels in pick up trucks with AA guns mounted on the back and some firing automatic weapons in the air just who the citizens being protected by the bombing are and how many must die to be saved?

Not as many I suspect as in Afganastan or other countries that are at present being saved from themselves, but Libya is a big country with a lot of resources and this international attrocity could continue for some time.

I also wonder when I see on Tele the proud showing of a tank and all those inside and around being killed by a "Smart Bomb" , but I suppose they are soldiers and therefore deserve to be killed to save the civilians with the aforementioned pick up trucks and auto arms.

You who defend such actions whoever they are led by should take a serious look at yourselves.

[midas]

Meanwhile I have been wondering why little Joe Biden the Vice President of the Greatest Nation on Earth is as quiet as a church mouse … where is he ?

But then after several contradictions between The Secretary of State and the Commander in Chief

followed by even more contradictions between The Secretary of Defence and the Commander in Chief

I guess it would be hard for Joe Biden to face the media about this statement he made.. listen to his words carefully

You can run but can’t hide Joe

Edited April 3, 2011 by midas

[flying]

I guess it would be hard for Joe Biden to face the media about this statement he made.. listen to his words carefully

You can run but can’t hide Joe

Well there it is

Wonder if he still has those constitutional convictions?

[Steely Dan]

I guess it would be hard for Joe Biden to face the media about this statement he made.. listen to his words carefully

You can run but can’t hide Joe

Well there it is

Wonder if he still has those constitutional convictions?

Can he impeach the U.N, or NATO for that matter?

[midas]

I guess it would be hard for Joe Biden to face the media about this statement he made.. listen to his words carefully

You can run but can’t hide Joe

Well there it is

Wonder if he still has those constitutional convictions?

Well he did say " i don't say those things lightly Chris " ?

I mean he didn't mention anything in the interview about even possibly changing his stance

on that if he were to become Vice President ?

[midas]

I guess it would be hard for Joe Biden to face the media about this statement he made.. listen to his words carefully

You can run but can’t hide Joe

Well there it is

Can he impeach the U.N, or NATO for that matter?

so where do you draw the line ?

If you are suggesting that he should aattach more importance to what the UN and NATO

authorise him to do - under what circumstances does he

ever need to get the approval of Congress and The Senate about anything in the future ?

[flying]

Can he impeach the U.N, or NATO for that matter?

We The People of the United States Of America did not vote the UN into to office nor did we ask them to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution

[chuckd]

The really weak part of the interview was, after Biden expounded on Bush's possible impeachment, Chris Matthews did not ask him if that did not seem to be exactly what Obama has just done.

I do believe Obama has acted outside his Constitutional authority and grounds for impeachment exist.

The US Constitution limits the President what he can or cannot do. Neither the UN nor NATO have a voice in the discussion about US actions.

[flying]

The really weak part of the interview was, after Biden expounded on Bush's possible impeachment, Chris Matthews did not ask him if that did not seem to be exactly what Obama has just done.

I do believe Obama has acted outside his Constitutional authority and grounds for impeachment exist.

The US Constitution limits the President what he can or cannot do. Neither the UN nor NATO have a voice in the discussion about US actions.

Well therein lies the rub

That tape was from Dec 4, 2007 when he was a Senator

Now that he is VP he seems to have a lapse of memory including his oath of office

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Edited April 3, 2011 by flying

[chuckd]

The really weak part of the interview was, after Biden expounded on Bush's possible impeachment, Chris Matthews did not ask him if that did not seem to be exactly what Obama has just done.

I do believe Obama has acted outside his Constitutional authority and grounds for impeachment exist.

The US Constitution limits the President what he can or cannot do. Neither the UN nor NATO have a voice in the discussion about US actions.

Well therein lies the rub

That tape was from Dec 4, 2007 when he was a Senator

Now that he is VP he seems to have a lapse of memory including his oath of office

Oops, didn't notice that. Thanks. :jap:

Bet Biden wouldn't say that today.

[flying]

Oops, didn't notice that. Thanks. :jap:

Bet Biden wouldn't say that today.

Yes he would not utter those words now & neither would Chris Matthews remind him

But I am sure the memory has crossed Joe's mind many a time in recent weeks

[powderpuff]

Senator Clinton made very similar remarks at the same time on the same topic.

In essence that George W. Bush had better get permission from Congress should he have any ideas about military actions in Iran.

Typical Democrat hypocrisy.

Jst remember folks Obama will couch his remarks so that if all goes well he will take the credit. If it's botched he will deflect the blame onto the UN or Nato or Buster the dog. That's his MO.

[Steely Dan]

I'm afraid the U.S haters conspiracy theories are blown out of the water if any of the following is true.

http://www.debka.com/article/20815/

The United States has quietly withdrawn its air and sea assets from Libya and virtually ended its military intervention against Muammar Qaddafi's armed forces. This action over the weekend exposed NATO and its leading powers Britain and France as badly short of the air and sea capabilities necessary for halting Muammar Qaddafi's military advances, enforcing a no fly zone over the territory he controls or maintaining a sea blockade on Libyan ports

It also leaves France and the UK in a tricky position.

[midas]

I'm afraid the U.S haters conspiracy theories are blown out of the water if any of the following is true.

http://www.debka.com/article/20815/

The United States has quietly withdrawn its air and sea assets from Libya and virtually ended its military intervention against Muammar Qaddafi's armed forces. This action over the weekend exposed NATO and its leading powers Britain and France as badly short of the air and sea capabilities necessary for halting Muammar Qaddafi's military advances, enforcing a no fly zone over the territory he controls or maintaining a sea blockade on Libyan ports

It also leaves France and the UK in a tricky position.

not by a very long way...........in fact the plot thickens

US And Egyptian Special Forces May Be Covertly Training Libyan Rebels

U.S. and Egyptian special forces are training Libyan rebel fighters in the use of advanced weapons, according to a report from Al Jazeera.

This news comes as U.S. fighter planes appear to be pulling back from the front lines, with NATO forces taking over.

Beyond training, it appears Egypt and the U.S. are already supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, even though U.S. officials have publicly refused to do so. The individual who spoke to Al Jazeera mentioned Katyusha rockets as weapon they were being trained to use.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/libyan-rebels-special-forces-training-2011-4#ixzz1IToNMIEj

Edited April 3, 2011 by midas

[midas]

I'm afraid the U.S haters conspiracy theories are blown out of the water if any of the following is true.

http://www.debka.com/article/20815/

The United States has quietly withdrawn its air and sea assets from Libya and virtually ended its military intervention against Muammar Qaddafi's armed forces. This action over the weekend exposed NATO and its leading powers Britain and France as badly short of the air and sea capabilities necessary for halting Muammar Qaddafi's military advances, enforcing a no fly zone over the territory he controls or maintaining a sea blockade on Libyan ports

It also leaves France and the UK in a tricky position.

not by a very long way...........in fact the plot thickens

US And Egyptian Special Forces May Be Covertly Training Libyan Rebels

U.S. and Egyptian special forces are training Libyan rebel fighters in the use of advanced weapons, according to a report from Al Jazeera.

This news comes as U.S. fighter planes appear to be pulling back from the front lines, with NATO forces taking over.

Beyond training, it appears Egypt and the U.S. are already supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, even though U.S. officials have publicly refused to do so. The individual who spoke to Al Jazeera mentioned Katyusha rockets as weapon they were being trained to use.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/libyan-rebels-special-forces-training-2011-4#ixzz1IToNMIEj

[coma]

I'm afraid the U.S haters conspiracy theories are blown out of the water if any of the following is true.

http://www.debka.com/article/20815/

The United States has quietly withdrawn its air and sea assets from Libya and virtually ended its military intervention against Muammar Qaddafi's armed forces. This action over the weekend exposed NATO and its leading powers Britain and France as badly short of the air and sea capabilities necessary for halting Muammar Qaddafi's military advances, enforcing a no fly zone over the territory he controls or maintaining a sea blockade on Libyan ports

It also leaves France and the UK in a tricky position.

Don't be so nieve.

[midas]

And yet another reference to covert operations which started

well before the President's speech to the Nation :-

US Army, CIA officers in Libya for 12 days already

The US TV channel Fox News quotes a Retired Army Colonel David Hunt as saying that US Army and CIA officers infiltrated Libya 12 days ago.

Another interviewee, an Intelligence Service Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaeffer, said David Hunt was perfectly correct.

When commenting on the Whtie House statements to the reverse, the two officers said it was regular practice to hush up things like that.

Meanwhile the US President Barack Obama offered assurances earlier today that Washington would not use the armed forces to topple the political regime in Libya.

But according to various unofficial sources, the western coalition is actively drawing up a ground operation plan.

According to the latest reports, more than 110 people have died in the last three days of airstrikes in Libya.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=158&t=455603

[midas]

Now you claim that the presence of the CIA in Libya is boots on the ground. You are really trying every which way to avoid dealing with the lie. Deny, deny, go off on a tangent, make up stories, but the lies remain. The CIA is not a military organization. Nor is it a paramilitary organization. It is 100% civilian, just as a US police agency is civilian and not paramilitary .

How about you just stay on story and quit with fantasy tales.

if it walks like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, it’s probably a Duck.

Paramilitary Operations Officer/Specialized Skills Officer

https://www.cia.gov/careers/opportunities/clandestine/paramilitary-operations-officer-specialized-skills-officer.html

transcript of interview with Colonel Anthony Schaeffer

00:10:38 >> Is the president lying when he says we don't have troops on the ground?

00:10:44 >> I don't know what the president is thinking is on this.

00:10:48 We don't have large scale combat units or humanitarian units on the ground.

00:10:54 I think it would be less than honest to say we have no boots on the ground.

00:10:58 >> Americans in uniforms and with communication equipment who are in the military who are on the ground?

00:11:04 >> I would hazard to say probably not in uniform but, yes they are probably able to give two critical things.

00:11:13 Realtime intelligence, eyes on the target and most importantly they are trying to reach out to the rebel elements to tell us who is doing what.

00:11:21 >> If we have americans on the ground to target the equipment that we want to destroy or provide us with intelligence, isn't it likely they were on the ground before two tuesdays ago when president decided to do this?

00:11:36 He sent them there before he told us?

00:11:39 >> I believe from my source they were on the ground at least this past saturday.

00:11:47 It's possible they were there before that.

00:11:49 This is my concern, we were doing this in bosnia long before we daemg admitted doing anything there.

Full interview here :-

http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_o%27reilly_factor/51/FNC/Sunday_March_27_2011/575846/

[coma]

It seems as though the 'coalition' over estimated the rebels ability to over throw the Gaddafi regime.And has grossly mistaken the numbers that were/ are loyal to that regime. End state being they will not over throw this regime without more 'support'. Looks like another Afghanistan. All the US SF on the ground assisting the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban. Ten years later look what is happening there. As I have said soooo many times before. We NEVER NEVER learn from our mistakes or past experiences.

Why openly lie about this gig in Libya?? It has made the Obama lose even more credabilty. They are playing this like a bunch of college students in a Frat House.

[midas]

And yet another reference to covert operations which started

well before the President's speech to the Nation :-

US Army, CIA officers in Libya for 12 days already

The US TV channel Fox News quotes a Retired Army Colonel David Hunt as saying that US Army and CIA officers infiltrated Libya 12 days ago.

Another interviewee, an Intelligence Service Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaeffer, said David Hunt was perfectly correct.

When commenting on the Whtie House statements to the reverse, the two officers said it was regular practice to hush up things like that.

Meanwhile the US President Barack Obama offered assurances earlier today that Washington would not use the armed forces to topple the political regime in Libya.

But according to various unofficial sources, the western coalition is actively drawing up a ground operation plan.

According to the latest reports, more than 110 people have died in the last three days of airstrikes in Libya.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=158&t=455603

CORRECTION ! the correct link to this story

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/03/26/48012234.html

[geriatrickid]

The really weak part of the interview was, after Biden expounded on Bush's possible impeachment, Chris Matthews did not ask him if that did not seem to be exactly what Obama has just done.

I do believe Obama has acted outside his Constitutional authority and grounds for impeachment exist.

The US Constitution limits the President what he can or cannot do. Neither the UN nor NATO have a voice in the discussion about US actions.

Well then, I suggest you bring a motion in the House of Representatives or in the Senate expressing your sentiments.

[flying]

I do believe Obama has acted outside his Constitutional authority and grounds for impeachment exist.

The US Constitution limits the President what he can or cannot do. Neither the UN nor NATO have a voice in the discussion about US actions.

Well then, I suggest you bring a motion in the House of Representatives or in the Senate expressing your sentiments.

Kind of a sad state of affairs that motions would need to be brought forth to remind our elected president who swore to uphold the constitution to actually follow through on it.

Edited April 4, 2011 by flying

[chuckd]

The really weak part of the interview was, after Biden expounded on Bush's possible impeachment, Chris Matthews did not ask him if that did not seem to be exactly what Obama has just done.

I do believe Obama has acted outside his Constitutional authority and grounds for impeachment exist.

The US Constitution limits the President what he can or cannot do. Neither the UN nor NATO have a voice in the discussion about US actions.

Well then, I suggest you bring a motion in the House of Representatives or in the Senate expressing your sentiments.

If I were, indeed, a member of the House of Representatives I would do exactly that. The Senate votes on the articles of impeachment only after the House passes on them.

Unfortunately I am not, therefore I cannot.

[midas]

Former CIA Analyst Tells Truth About Libya Intervention On CNN, Hilarity Ensues

Edited April 4, 2011 by midas