Obama to address nation on Monday about Libya

[Rick345]

WASHINGTON – To a nation and a Congress seeking answers, President Barack Obama on Monday will offer his most expansive explanation of the U.S. role in the Libyan war, delivering a speech that is expected to cover the path ahead and his rationale about the appropriate use of force.

Obama's 7:30 p.m. EDT speech, to be given from the National Defense University in Washington, comes as leading Republican lawmakers and some from his own party have pressed him for clarity about the goals and exit strategy of the United States. Obama and top U.S. security officials spent about an hour talking to lawmakers on Friday, with the president answering direct questions

The president will also put the Libyan campaign into a broader context of his decisions about the use of force, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the president's thinking. U.S.-led forces began launching missile strikes last Saturday against embattled Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi's defenses to establish a no-fly zone and prevent him from attacking his own people.

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 U.S. military's Africa Command would hand off to NATO the lead role in attacking Libyan ground targets.

The U.S. commander in charge of the overall international mission, Army Gen. Carter Ham, told The Associated Press, "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."

Link

[hwmnbn]

I'll be watching.

[Peace Takes Strength]

it's about damn time

[hwmnbn]

it's about damn time

Sorry to break it to ya, but you won't be hearing him say shit like...





That's ANOTHER way Libya does not equal Iraq.

[Peace Takes Strength]

I'm wondering if a President has ever committed US forces to a major military operation and NOT addressed the nation. Or is Obama the first?

[Rick345]

I'm wondering if a President has ever committed US forces to a major military operation and NOT addressed the nation. Or is Obama the first?

No, not by a long shot:

Operation Barrel Roll Laos Johnson 1965
Operation Steel Tiger and Operation Tiger Hound Laos Johnson 1966
The Air War in El Salvador Reagan/Bush 1980-88
Operation Menu Cambodia Nixon 1969-70

And there were and are probably plenty more but, these are the ones have come to light. However, I'm guessing our involvement in Pakistan is larger than a few drone missiles attacks but, I'm only guessing so we'll let that one slide unless you have any inside info you could share.

[hwmnbn]

Here's the speech. I'm down with it.

Any questions or comments?

[quickiewle]

After seeing what happened in Rwanda when nobody intervened ( 800,000 dead ) I have no problem with the rationale of preventing a massacre.That said I agree that we cannot always intervene to stop oppression. But I think even Gandhi would say that Gaddhafi would not be amenable to pacifistic means, sort of like the old saying that if Hitler had taken India Gandhi would be a lampshade. I also think our administration has been careful and deliberate ( some would argue too much so) in developing partnerships and defining its objectives. In my ideal universe we'd take Gaddhafi out, but I grudgingly agree with the necessity of not jumping into that can of worms

" To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq."

.
I'm just glad Mr. " Bring 'em on!" isn't running the show... he'd be strutting the deck of an aircraft carrier in a flight suit carefully tailored to highlight the Presidential Package (eeesh ). It seems we might actually have learned a thing or two from Iraq.

I sure hope so.

[hwmnbn]

" To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq."

.
LOL. When I heard that I said....Oh SNAP!!





Here's something else that caught my attention...

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

I said WTF!?!? Turns out the senate knew all about the NFZ and...

The US Senate has unanimously passed a resolution calling for a no-fly zone over Libya as Washington is preparing the ground for military intervention in the oil-rich country.

link

So that argument that Obama didn't consult or inform anyone is specious.

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.

...And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.

Striking comparison.

Seems like a more adult behavior than landing on an aircraft carrier, playing dress-up, and putting up banners.



I almost forgot what a dumbass W is.






And finally, I'm not hearing any talking heads mentioning that a major atrocity was averted. Obama and the coalition are not getting any credit for that. The MSM is focusing on process and not the content of the speech. Son of a bitch!!

[quickiewle]

I almost forgot what a dumbass W is.

That's called ' merciful amnesia '... that frigging codpiece makes me wanna puke.

Clusterfuck accomplished.

[Rick345]

"It's like déjà vu all over again.", Yogi Berra

Obama Signed Secret Libya Order Authorizing Support For Rebels

Remind me which candidate campaigned on a platform of open and transparent government particularly when it comes to matters of Foreign policy?
Wait I remember....



My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

SUBJECT:Transparency and Open Government

There's a fundamental principle in leadership called, "leading by example." Simple put if your the shift leader at a McDonald's or the CEO of General Motors if your a Sargent or a Colonel if you make policy you above all others must follow it or no one else will nor should be expected to. As a leader Obama is fundamentally flawed. Anyone who says everyone I'm in charge of will work in an open and transparent allowing the American people to judge me on the merits of my job because they have open access to my work can not be signing secret orders for anything whatsoever.

[hwmnbn]

However the decision was made to possibly arm the rebels, it is a big gamble for Obama. Whatever factors involved in the process will eventually be revealed and we can judge them on their merits. We can judge the operation on its outcome.


But to your point...

Anyone who says everyone I'm in charge of will work in an open and transparent allowing the American people to judge me on the merits of my job because they have open access to my work can not be signing secret orders for anything whatsoever.

The secret order to which you refer is a "presidential finding" which has been around since 1974.

From your link above..

..Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

So I don't think you want total openness and transparency when discussing or ordering covert operations. That would undermine the whole point of "covert," hence the no comment.

Obama still has to adhere to the legal requirements concerning such actions. I believe he has since I'm not hearing anyone accusing him of breaking the law.

[quickiewle]

So I don't think you want total openness and transparency when discussing or ordering covert operations. That would undermine the whole point of "covert," hence the no comment.

Yep.... telling us would be telling Gadhafi. You don't waltz up to somebody you're about to coldcock and say, " I'm gonna deck ya now."
Oh, and about the whole transparency thing...I almost stuck this in the humor subforum.
From Yahoo News

Obama gets openness award in private
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Erica Werner, Associated Press 1 hr 20 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama accepted an award for making the government more open and transparent — presented to him behind closed doors with no media coverage or public access allowed.

The discrepancy between the honor and the circumstances under which it was delivered bothered open-government advocates in attendance, they said Thursday. They were even more perturbed when they discovered later that the meeting hadn't even been listed on Obama's public schedule, so there was no way for anyone to know about it.

"To have such a meeting not be transparent is the height of irony. How absurd can that be?" said one participant, Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, which keeps tabs on the White House Office of Management and Budget.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that, "Given the number of pressing items on the president's agenda, the White House didn't carve out time for a public event on the president's schedule for the sole purpose of accepting an award from journalists praising his commitment to government transparency."

The award was given by Bass's group and several others Monday to recognize Obama's work toward government openness and encourage him to do more.

Obama took office promising the most open and transparent administration in history, and advocates have been encouraged by steps he's taken including releasing White House visitor logs. They say more needs to be done in getting agencies to respond more thoroughly to public records requests, among other things.

Monday's meeting was rescheduled from one set for March 16, which is National Freedom of Information Day. On that day the meeting was listed on the president's public schedule, but it was canceled at the last minute.

Bass said he'd been assured that Monday's meeting would be open to the media and didn't learn it wouldn't be until arriving at the White House.

Nonetheless he and other advocates were pleased with how the 20-minute discussion went, saying Obama expressed support for greater transparency and backed legislation to protect reporters' confidential sources.

A couple of days later they learned from reporters that the meeting had been omitted from Obama's public schedule altogether.

"I think the action by the White House has taken a meeting where the storyline could have been how to strengthen disclosure, and it's become a storyline about how the meeting is a secret meeting," Bass said.

[Rick345]

So I don't think you want total openness and transparency when discussing or ordering covert operations. That would undermine the whole point of "covert," hence the no comment.

Obama still has to adhere to the legal requirements concerning such actions. I believe he has since I'm not hearing anyone accusing him of breaking the law.

He may or may not have broken the law that has yet to be seen but, what he did do was break a fundamental promise he make during his campaign. He could have easily said to the American people, "That if Gadhafi doesn't stop bombing his own people we and our coalition partners will impose a no fly zone and use whatever means necessary including military force to protect the citizenry of Libya.", before firing the first shot or dropping the first bomb. Furthermore, I'm not so sure he acted legally.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

At a press conference in Chile last Monday Obama gave no indication that he thought any congressional authorization was needed. I find that very odd for a man who when he ran for president said, "The President does not have 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,” Obama told the Boston Globe in 2007.

The statements enraged some administration critics who believe the White House has violated basic tenets of the 1973 War Powers Act, which require Congressional approval to engage U.S. military forces overseas combat. The last time Congress declared war was during WWII, and a long line of presidents have essentially ignored the act, arguing that it places unconstitutional shackles on the President's role as commander-in-chief.

Congress "has been left out in the cold on this one," said Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), a longtime opponent of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. "There has been no consultation at all."

"We read about it in the newspapers and then we ask questions about it," said Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH). "I think that's concerning to the Congress and I think it's concerning to the American people, and I believe rightly so."

Several times during the hearing Gates repeated a one-line defense of Obama's actions.

"The President's compliance with the War Powers Act has been consistent with the actions taken by all of his predecessors -- both Democrats and Republicans" since the law was passed in 1973, Gates said. Angry Lawmakers Grill Gates On Libya And War Powers Act

So let me get this straight Obama says he did notify the Senate yet the law says the president must notify Congress. Sorry I can't give him half credit he borke the law plain and simple because he did not notify the House. Both republicans and democrats in Congress said the first they heard of military action in Libya was when they read about it in the papers. Also Obama's talking heads defense for the president's action is, "Well if Bush did it; Obama can too."

Is that really the defense Obama supports can come up with for breaking not only campaign promises and the law. We'll see in 49 days if the US stops all military operations in Libya. Countdown to May 22nd starting now!

War Powers Act 1973
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


Was they a declaration of war? NO!
A specific statutory authorization? NO!
An attack on the USA? NO!

[hwmnbn]

He may or may not have broken the law that has yet to be seen but, what he did do was break a fundamental promise he make during his campaign. He could have easily said to the American people, "That if Gadhafi doesn't stop bombing his own people we and our coalition partners will impose a no fly zone and use whatever means necessary including military force to protect the citizenry of Libya.", before firing the first shot or dropping the first bomb. Furthermore, I'm not so sure he acted legally.

Then he would have been excoriated for conducting foreign policy on TV, giving away his plans, and not getting all his coalition ducks in a row BEFORE acting. You've put him in an untenable position.

So let me get this straight Obama says he did notify the Senate yet the law says the president must notify Congress. Sorry I can't give him half credit he borke the law plain and simple because he did not notify the House.

He met with the following congressional delegation on March 18.

Mar 18, 2011
Obama meets with members of Congress on Libya
01:09 PM

By David Jackson, USA TODAY


President Obama is outlining the U.S. role in the global response to Libya to a congressional delegation, the White House announced.

The meeting comes a day after the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing possible military action to protect Libya's citizens.

The United States and its allies are discussing establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Moammar Gadhafi's government from bombing rebel forces.

Gadhafi's government responded to the U.N. resolution by declaring a cease-fire against Libyan rebels.

Some members of the bipartisan congressional delegation are here at the White House, while others are on a secure conference call.

Those being briefed:

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

Rep. Mike Rogers, D-Mich.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md.

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif.

link

Whatever the merits of this policy, we'll soon find out. IMO, Obama is not prone to make kneejerk responses or showboat for the cameras. It's not his style. I trust his intelligence because he's nothing if not thoughtful and deliberate.

[hwmnbn]

It seems like there was/is a plan and one milestone has been reached...

Libya Mission: U.S. Eases Off, Gadhafi Holds On

...Starting Sunday, no U.S. combat aircraft are to fly strike missions in Libya. Also falling silent on Sunday will be the initial workhorses of the military campaign: U.S. Navy destroyers and submarines that launched Tomahawk cruise missiles from the positions in the Mediterranean Sea.

The planes and naval vessels will be on standby in case NATO commanders decide their own forces cannot handle the mission on their own. Combat air missions will continue to be flown by Britain, France and other NATO member countries.

...Marine Lt. Col. Shawn R. Hermley, a Harrier pilot who estimates he has flown about a dozen combat missions over Libya, said in an interview Friday that he's not personally bothered that he'll no longer be dropping 500-pound guided bombs on Gadhafi's tanks, armored personnel carriers and self-propelled artillery. He said his Harrier detachment has made a difference, while taking care not to risk civilian casualties.

"If we were to walk away today, I'd be very proud of that and realize that we've made a significant impact to protect the people of Libya," he said by telephone from aboard the Kearsarge.

link

Although there is continued violence on the ground, unless something unforseen happens, it looks like the US military role in Libya has been completed. By my count there have been no US combat casualties during this operation. My guess is there are still CIA and special ops guys doing their thing but we civilians will never know.

I'm not sure how it will all shake out, but this was a big gamble and so far, it hasn't been a disaster.

[Rick345]

Some members of the bipartisan congressional delegation are here at the White House, while others are on a secure conference call.

Those being briefed:

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

Rep. Mike Rogers, D-Mich.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md.

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif.

link

Whatever the merits of this policy, we'll soon find out. IMO, Obama is not prone to make kneejerk responses or showboat for the cameras. It's not his style. I trust his intelligence because he's nothing if not thoughtful and deliberate.[/quote]

So as far as each of us can tell about Obama's notification of Congress he gathered enough Senators to at least form a quorum and get a resolution passed and as far as that goes I'm fine with it. But, it seems he only notified 19 Representatives only 19... The house has 435 voting members so notifying less then 5% of the house does satisfy the law. Back in 1973 what has become known as the War Powers Act came about because of Nixon's secret wars in Cambodia and Laos which he orchestrated to support the larger theater of operations in Vietnam. The fact that a president could at his whim bring large scale military force against countries for no other reasons than his own so horrified the American people the War Powers Act came into being. The purpose of the War Powers Act is to get as many people on board to decide if using military force is prudent and necessary. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and when the act mentioned Congress it is referring to both houses and the majority of Congress not just 19 people. I think military action in Libya is a kneejerk response and deliberate that's doubtful a man who made 520 campaign promises and has only been fulfilled about two dozen isn't very deliberate in thought or action.

Truthful mmmmm, stating that transparency and rule of law will be the touchstone of his administration, President Obama, on his first day in office I'm still waiting for that to happen. He has had closed door meetings when he said such meeting would be televised there were not. He said he would listen to those who agreed and listen even closer to those who didn't agree with him he's had not done so.

It is the cornerstone of President Obama's campaign theme about limiting the influence of special interests. By itself, the nomination of former Raytheon lobbyist William J. Lynn to be deputy defense secretary provides sufficient evidence for us to rate this a broken promise. Lynn's waiver requires that he not participate "personally and substantially" in any matter in which Raytheon is a party for one year, which directly contradicts Obama's campaign pledge and executive order to make ex-lobbyists wait two years. Remind me who is the Under Secretary of Defense?

I can go on and on, and I'll even give Obama the benefit of a doubt on issues such as gitmo were he may have gotten in over his head and couldn't keep a promise because of some nuance in the law but, selecting a Secretary of Defense was certainly a matter of choice and he lied when he made the promise to make ex-lobbyists wait two years. Not only that but, an executive order does carry the weight of law you try breaking one, so Obama not only dishonest and his little respect for his promises he not only feels he can break the law at his own whim he even breaks his very own laws...

Explain to me how he's honest and deliberate I just don't get it.

[hwmnbn]

Obama has been far from the perfect president. I was hoping for way more FDR policies and attitudes. But given the shitstorm facing the country and remembering the alternative choice, I'm STILL GRATEFUL Obama was elected. You have soured on his presidency, he's lost your confidence and your future vote. I get it, that's fine, it's democracy in action.

I think military action in Libya is a kneejerk response and deliberate that's doubtful a man who made 520 campaign promises and has only been fulfilled about two dozen isn't very deliberate in thought or action.

PolitiFact is tracking his campaign promises. What you contend is "two dozen" kept promises, they document 134.

I'm certain if we dig into the weeds about those broken promises, there might be some explanation or mitigating circumstances or maybe even a fact-checked story about the how and why the individual promises were broken. Not that it matters because most folks just care about the score.

.. He said he would listen to those who agreed and listen even closer to those who didn't agree with him he's had not done so.

Ever? Never? You are contending he has not elicited opposing viewpoints. Do you really suggest Obama is an insular president making all these decisions unilaterally without input from or regard for political opponents? Those of us on the left say he's done way TOO MUCH compromising and not enough hardball political arm-twisting. How can we both witness the same actions and see such different results?

It is the cornerstone of President Obama's campaign theme about limiting the influence of special interests. By itself, the nomination of former Raytheon lobbyist William J. Lynn to be deputy defense secretary provides sufficient evidence for us to rate this a broken promise. Lynn's waiver requires that he not participate "personally and substantially" in any matter in which Raytheon is a party for one year, which directly contradicts Obama's campaign pledge and executive order to make ex-lobbyists wait two years. Remind me who is the Under Secretary of Defense?

He took a lot of political heat for that. Maybe Obama thought he was qualified and that was his main criteria.

Lynn was not, prior to this week, a widely known political figure. But his background, outside of Raytheon, is extensive and impressive. He served for four years as the Under Secretary of Defense, was the director of program analysis in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and was awarded three DoD medals for distinguished public service. In addition, he has extensive history on Capitol Hill, having served for six years under Sen. Ted Kennedy.

link

My opinion is he could've found someone else equally as qualified and spared himself the political heat. It was an unnecessary move and a self-inflicted wound.

... so Obama not only dishonest and his little respect for his promises he not only feels he can break the law at his own whim he even breaks his very own laws...

Rick, if this were true, given todays highly charged partisan divide, given the 24/7 media attacks on him from Fox and hate radio, given the enormous amounts of RW cash allocated for his destruction, and given the teabagger majority in the house and thus the chairmanships of all oversight committees, don't you think there would be some legal action instigated somewhere? If Obama is as lawless as you contend, there should have already been multiple civil and criminal proceedings. Thus far only the lawsuit brought against Obama was by that birther colonel who refused to deploy.

You KNOW the teabaggers are salivating at the prospect of tying him up legislatively and what better way than to hound him like they did the Clintons with investigations and depositions and individual lawsuits. My question is for all of his alleged dishonesty and criminality, why haven't his political enemies taken advantage?

My guess is because there is no there, there.

Explain to me how he's honest and deliberate I just don't get it.

I can't explain it. It's a judgement call. We were discussing Libya here. For my money, he did everything correctly in front of the cameras and behind the scene. If he didn't have the TRUST of all the coalition members including the Arab League, nothing would've happened. Even though France and UK led the diplomatic efforts at the UN, do you think they would have done so if they thought Obama was a lying scumbag? I don't.

Somewhere, some folks still trust Obama with some real important shit.

[rightiswrong]

I don't allow Fox "News" to color my opinion - I support the President and the course he took in this operation.

[quickiewle]

Yep... at least we know he gave the matter some thought, rather than going on a testosterone binge like Uncle George and getting all ' bring 'em on'. . And I don't sense a corporatist agenda driving this, as there so clearly was in Iraq ( Baghdad Year Zero). My current qualms are about NATO asking us to extend our airstrikes until today... here's hoping they don't ask us today to extend them 'til Friday, and so on, and so on, and so on... and I don't look forward to some bemedalled jackass saying we could be in Libya for 100 years. Different time, different place, same ol' shit. War is always the same.