How many countries can we dump missiles into before it is a world war?
"Obama schedules Monday address on Libya; President expected to detail handover to NATO control" by Robert Burns and Ben Feller, Associated Press / March 26, 2011
WASHINGTON —The speech offers him his best chance to explain the purpose and scope of the mission to a nation weary of war. Obama has spoken about the matter since authorizing the use of force, but not in a setting as prominent as an evening speech, as he seeks to take command of the story.
Translation: it is a propaganda pitch.
Obama is expected to explain how the US-led campaign is shifting to NATO control, and how the multinational approach with Arab support puts the United States in the strongest position to achieve the goals of protecting Libyan civilians, a White House official said....
With the Obama administration eager to take a back seat, it remained unclear when NATO would assume command of the no-fly patrols. Also unclear was when — and even if — the US military’s Africa Command would hand off to NATO the lead role in attacking Libyan ground targets.
Are you sick of the lying yet?
The US commander in charge of the overall international mission, Army General Carter Ham, said “We could easily destroy all the regime forces that are in Ajdabiya,’’ but the city itself would be destroyed in the process. “We’d be killing the very people that we’re charged with protecting.’’
Yeah, that is what we are doing.
Instead, the focus is on disrupting the communications and supply lines that allow Khadafy’s forces to keep fighting in Ajdabiya and other urban areas such as Misrata, Ham said in a telephone interview from his Africa Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.
The White House announcement of Monday’s speech came after Obama’s teleconference yesterday with a bipartisan group of key members of Congress. The call came amid complaints on Capitol Hill that Obama was not adequately consulting about the intervention in Libya with Capitol Hill.
Related: Congress Comes Together On Libya
Everything okay now?
During the call, Obama and other officials emphasized to lawmakers that the United States’ military role would be decreasing going forward, according to an official who listened to the conversation and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the closed meeting.
So he LIED TO THEM, too?
Obama reiterated the US position that Khadafy should leave power. But he said, as he has publicly, that the United States planned to follow the mission of the UN Security Council resolution, which centers on the protection of Libyan civilians. The campaign is not aimed at killing Khadafy, the official said.
That's why they missiled his house.
House Speaker John A. Boehner asked a series of questions and got direct answers from both the president and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the official said. The president also took questions from the Senate’s top Republican, Mitch McConnell, and from other lawmakers.
After the call, a spokesman for Boehner said the speaker wants the Obama administration to do more to explain how the mission in Libya “is consistent with US policy goals.’’
Three words: oil, gas, and water.
--more--"
"Pentagon cuts Navy firepower aimed at Libya" by Robert Burns, Associated Press / March 28, 2011
WASHINGTON — In a sign of US confidence that the weeklong assault on Libya has tamed Moammar Khadafy’s air defenses, the Pentagon has reduced the amount of naval firepower arrayed against him, officials said yesterday.
Please keep that in mind for later.
The move, not yet publicly announced, reinforces the White House message of a diminishing US role. That shift will be central in President Obama’s national address on Libya, scheduled for 7:30 tonight.
Who cares if it is a lie? You want to believe your president, right?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared on three Sunday news shows to promote the administration’s case ahead of the speech....
I'm glad I no longer watch those shows.
The shrinking of the naval presence adds substance to Obama’s expected reassurance to the American people that the United States is now handing off to partner countries in Europe and elsewhere the bulk of the responsibility for suppressing Khadafy’s forces.
Sort of the way a nice urine gravy adds to a roast s***.
Obama administration officials claimed progress in Libya, but lawmakers in both parties voiced skepticism over the mission’s length, scope, and cost.
Someone want to turn that record over?
Obama is trying to address those issues in a speech that is expected to provide his fullest explanation of the US role in Libya and what lies ahead.
Among other questions for Obama is whether the Libyan intervention should serve as a model for US policy toward other Arab countries where revolts against authoritarian governments are gaining ground.
Well, no, otherwise we would already be bombing the bejeezus out of Bahrain and Yemen.
--more--"
I didn't watch the speech or any news coverage afterward; my only AmeriKan media prism is New England's flagship newspaper (sob).
"Brutality in Libya required swift action, Obama says; Vows US will reduce role in coming days" by Donovan Slack and Farah Stockman, Globe Staff / March 29, 2011
WASHINGTON — US attacks on Libya are essential to prevent Moammar Khadafy from slaughtering his citizens and destabilizing a vital region, President Obama asserted last night in an address that sought to clarify the mission’s goals and counter concerns its beginning was clumsily executed and its end is uncertain.
The barbarity of Khadafy’s forces and the scope of his threats demanded immediate action, the president said, hinting that there was little time for a full congressional debate and approval.
“We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi — a city nearly the size of Charlotte — could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world,’’ Obama said. “It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.’’
And yet he stands by silently as Israel victimizes Palestinians.
And which nation invade Iraq over a boatload of lies, destabilizing the region?
It has REACHED the POINT where I can NO LONGER LISTEN to or READ what our leaders say!
The president said the United States is about to significantly reduce its role in the operation....
Meaning the coverage will begin dwindling soon.
“Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security,’’ Obama said, ticking off the need to respond to genocide and natural disasters as examples.
As he commits it in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan.
“These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving.’’
I think the world would rather we sit a few out, thanks.
Failing to act, he said, would have emboldened other repressive leaders in the region to use violence to stay in power.
Like they are doing in Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc.
The president, however, insisted the mission should not be broadened to include ousting Khadafy.
Just a week ago he was saying Khadafy must go. Must have been speaking off-script.
Obama said he would work toward that goal but only by using nonmilitary means.
Does he really think we are buying his bulls***?
“If we tried to overthrow Khadafy by force, our coalition would splinter,’’ he said, adding that costs would multiply and be borne by the US alone. “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq.’’
How come we are still there?
The swift Libyan intervention — which marks the first time Obama has ordered US troops into a new conflict — is considered a key test of his presidency and a moment that allowed him to delineate his most comprehensive vision yet for America’s role in the world and the role of the military abroad.
Related:
PNAC
A Clean Break
Can't we get one from those parasites?
“He laid the beginnings of an Obama doctrine,’’ said Stephen Flanagan, a national security specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies....
And the PARAGRAPH EDITED OUT for you webbers?
At least one recent poll shows Americans solidly behind the president's decision. Seventy percent favored the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya in a March 18-20 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. Fifty-four percent favored airstrikes against Khadafy's forces, with 43 percent unopposed.
They must have realized what an outrageous lie it was.
"A poll conducted by Fox News last week, before the airstrikes started, found a majority of Americans, 65 percent, opposed to military involvement in Libya"
And there is no reason for the WAR-WEARY, WAR-HATING American public to FLIP on that, sorry!!!
We don't want to answer the klaxon anymore because the klaxon is a lie.
The rest makes it:
If Khadafy and his regime are gone in a month, replaced by a democratic government sympathetic to the United States, the president could take credit for a strategic and political victory, said Tom Kelly, professor emeritus of history and American studies at Siena College in New York.
Isn't that the SAME S*** we were told about Saddam and Iraq?
But if the conflict drags on and fails to stop Khadafy from attacking civilians, it would be a resounding defeat and more fodder for Obama critics....
It was a defeat when that first cruise missile was let loose.
Richard Eichenberg, a political science professor at Tufts, said Obama’s actions on Libya echoed President Clinton’s reluctant intervention to stop the atrocities in Kosovo after he had vowed to focus on strengthening the economy.
“Clinton almost failed,’’ Eichenberg said. “He had to bomb the Serbs for 60 days. He thought it was going to be over much sooner.’’
Yup, Billo littered Serbia with depleted uranium -- the same thing Obama is doing to Libya!
Clinton’s ratings fell as refugees poured out of Kosovo and the Serbs held their ground. But months later, as UN peacekeepers took over and the operation looked like a success, his popularity surged, Eichenberg said.
Obama last night used an earlier UN intervention in the Balkans as a guidepost to highlight how in only one month the United States and its allies were able to mobilize and prevent a massacre in Libya.
“When people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians,’’ Obama said.
Tom Malinowski, who wrote speeches for Clinton during the Kosovo engagement, agreed Obama acted quickly in Libya.
“This was probably the fastest military response to an impending human rights crisis in history,’’ said Malinowski, now Washington director for Human Rights Watch. “I think it says that despite his enormous sensitivity to America’s domestic troubles and the message that he gets every day from his base that he needs to focus on domestic concerns, he remains committed to a vision of America playing a larger role in the world.’’
That's a Human Rights Watch guy?
He's pro-Empire!!!
--more--"
Updates:
US launches new missile barrage at Libyan facilities
A US defense official said ships and submarines launched 22 cruise missiles, the most in several days, at Libyan storage facilities in Tripoli today.
Washing his hands in blood like Bush used to do. Comes with serving Israel, I guess.
Pentagon: Libya mission has cost US $550m so far
The empire is bankrupting us, and to have such cretins at the top that toss around the tax loot like they toss around missiles.
I'm ashamed, appalled, and disgusted, dear readers. I throw my hands up, condemn this crap-hole government of mine, and wonder WTF next? Collapse of your own dead weight, you stinking hulk of a corpse.
