• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Did the president mislead the American people about Libya?

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Obama's War of Choice
Did the president mislead the American people about Libya?

Steve Chapman | April 4, 2011

Remember when a crusading president, acting on dubious intelligence, insufficient information, and exaggerated fears, took the nation into a Middle Eastern war of choice? That was George W. Bush in 2003, invading Iraq. But it's also Barack Obama in 2011, attacking Libya.

For weeks, President Obama had been wary of military action. What obviously changed his mind was the fear that Moammar Gadhafi was bent on mass slaughter—which stemmed from Gadhafi's March 17 speech vowing "no mercy" for his enemies.

In his March 26 radio address, Obama said the United States acted because Gadhafi threatened "a bloodbath." Two days later, he asserted, "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."

Really? Obama implied that, absent our intervention, Gadhafi might have killed nearly 700,000 people, putting it in a class with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. White House adviser Dennis Ross was only slightly less alarmist when he reportedly cited "the real or imminent possibility that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred."

But these are outlandish scenarios that go beyond any reasonable interpretation of Gadhafi's words. He said, "We will have no mercy on them"—but by "them," he plainly was referring to armed rebels ("traitors") who stand and fight, not all the city's inhabitants.

"We have left the way open to them," he said. "Escape. Let those who escape go forever." He pledged that "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected."

Alan Kuperman, an associate professor at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, is among those unconvinced by Obama's case. "Gadhafi," he told me, "did not massacre civilians in any of the other big cities he captured—Zawiyah, Misratah, Ajdabiya—which together have a population equal to Benghazi. Yes, civilians were killed in a typical, ham-handed Third World counter-insurgency. But civilians were not targeted for massacre as in Rwanda, Darfur, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bosnia or even Kosovo after NATO intervention."

The rebels, however, knew that inflating their peril was their best hope for getting outside help. So, Kuperman says, they concocted the specter of genocide—and Obama believed it, or at least used it to justify intervention.

Another skeptic is Paul Miller, an assistant professor at National Defense University who served on the National Security Council under Bush and Obama. "The Rwandan genocide was targeted against an entire, clearly defined ethnic group," he wrote on the Foreign Policy website. "The Libyan civil war is between a tyrant and his cronies on one side, and a collection of tribes, movements, and ideologists (including Islamists) on the other. ... The first is murder, the second is war."

When I contacted Miller, he discounted the talk of vast slaughter. "Benghazi is the second-largest city in the country, and he needs the city and its people to continue functioning and producing goods for his impoverished country," he said.

Maybe these analysts are mistaken, but the administration has offered little in the way of rebuttal. Where Bush sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to make the case against Saddam Hussein, Obama has treated the evidence about Gadhafi as too obvious to dispute.

I e-mailed the White House press office several times asking for concrete evidence of the danger, based on any information the administration may have. But a spokesman declined comment.

That's a surprising omission, given that a looming holocaust was the centerpiece of the president's case for war. Absent specific, reliable evidence, we have to wonder if the president succumbed to unwarranted panic over fictitious dangers.

Bush had a host of reasons (or pretexts) for invading Iraq. But Obama has only one good excuse for the attack on Libya—averting mass murder. That gives the administration a special obligation to document the basis for its fears.

Maybe it can. Plenty of experts think Obama's worries were justified. But so far, the White House message has been: Trust us.

Sorry, but we've tried that before. In 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice waved off doubts about Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions, saying, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Right now, the Benghazi bloodbath looks like Obama's mushroom cloud.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/04/obamas-war-of-choice/print
 

Tam

Well-known member
I seriously don't know how anyone can trust a word this Administration spews. Last week Obama supported the President of Yemen and this week he is saying the guy has got to go.

Before that he said he supported the Libyan protestors and their murderous leader had to go but now it looks as if he has backed off that stand.

Who is next to have his support only to be tossed under the bus when he sees politically fit?
Not that I think a foreign murderous thug should retain office but why can't Obama think through things first then take a stand and stand by it.
He promised transparency but hides more info than any President in American History.
He says no lobbyist but folds like a house of cards when a lobbyist buddy ask for a job.
He calls the Wall Street business men Fat Cat until he realizes they are the ones that funded his campaigns.
He signs a paper closing Gitmo and is it closed NO.
He says no Gitmo tribuals and all the detainees will be brought to the US to stand trial and guess what Holder announced today. After months of delaying justice for the families of those the terrorists murdered the tribunals are back on.
When the Military leaders made their requests, Obama took months to weigh out the Political damage he would face if he gave the military leaders what they needed to WIN the war on terrorism. According to his own words a Win in the war on terrorism was not worth losing his whole Democrat party.
He passes the oh so needed Obamacare then hands out waivers like they are candy at halloween.

When will the man stop the political crap, tell the truth and finally do what is right for the good of the US? My guess is never. :x
 

Steve

Well-known member
if I was president I would have welcomed a chance to destroy gadaffy and his army..

it is hard to argue with the logic of bombing Libya's army into a smoldering scrap heap.. but arming the rebels would be a really stupid move!
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Did you hear Geraldo on Fox News
after getting caught in that cross-fire in Libya?

He said the Rebels had plenty of arms. That he was more afraid
of getting shot in the back than in the front. That the rebels needed
to be trained about battle.

Whoever the rebels are... :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Steve said:
if I was president I would have welcomed a chance to destroy gadaffy and his army..

it is hard to argue with the logic of bombing Libya's army into a smoldering scrap heap.. but arming the rebels would be a really stupid move!

Especially if you don't know who the rebels are. Are they plain old Libyans wanting freedom from a murderous thug leader OR are they ALQueada, The Muslin Brotherhood or any number of other radical extremists looking for a country to control and base their attacks from? Before arming the rebels Obama and the rest of the world leaders better make sure the guns will not be pointed at Americans when the smoke clears. But from the recent reports they don't know who they are or what their intentions are.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tam said:
Steve said:
if I was president I would have welcomed a chance to destroy gadaffy and his army..

it is hard to argue with the logic of bombing Libya's army into a smoldering scrap heap.. but arming the rebels would be a really stupid move!

Especially if you don't know who the rebels are. Are they plain old Libyans wanting freedom from a murderous thug leader OR are they ALQueada, The Muslin Brotherhood or any number of other radical extremists looking for a country to control and base their attacks from? Before arming the rebels Obama and the rest of the world leaders better make sure the guns will not be pointed at Americans when the smoke clears. But from the recent reports they don't know who they are or what their intentions are.


Tam, they know very well who they are. This "Jihad" against Gaddafi has been going on for years. The Benghazi region is full of people that do not believe Gaddafi is "Muslim enough"

This rebellion started right after Gadaffi released a couple hundred political prisoners with ties to the LIFG


This is from a very good article about the history of Gaddafi and the Benghazi region that was written in 2005. It also goes into some detail about the British government helping the LIFG in fighting Gaddafi in the past.

Meanwhile, fierce clashes between security forces and Islamist guerrillas erupted in Benghazi in September 1995, leaving dozens killed on both sides. After weeks of intense fighting, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) formally declared its existence in a communiqué calling Qadhafi's government "an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty" and declaring its overthrow to be "the foremost duty after faith in God." [3]

3. Al-Hayat (London), 20 October 1995.”





"Prior to Qadhafi's seizure of power in 1969, Libya had long been ruled by the descendent­s of the 19th century Islamic revivalist leader Muhammad ibn al-Sanusi. Keenly aware that the endorsemen­t of the Sanusi religious establishm­ent was critical in the short run to his regime's legitimacy­, Qadhafi consulted frequently with ulama (clergy) during his early years in power and granted them positions of influence in the legal and educationa­l system. After consolidat­ing his authority, however, he sidelined the ulama, seized control of their mosques, and nationaliz­ed their awqaf (religious endowments­). Adding insult to injury, he propagated his own idiosyncra­tic version of the Islamic faith. [1] In a region where even slight deviations from religious orthodoxy are taboo, such tampering was nothing short of blasphemou­s. Those who objected to this heresy were brutally suppressed­. Most notably, prominent Salafi preacher Muhammad al-Bashti (who could hardly be considered a radical) was tortured to death by Libyan security forces in 1981. "


http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=308
 

Tam

Well-known member
I guess that is what you get when you listen to the media on about what Obama and his State Department knows and don't know. :?
 

Steve

Well-known member
but why can't Obama think through things first then take a stand and stand by it.

Obama took months.. to decide if we should back up our own troops in Afghanistan..

The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House

the no fly zone could have been in place early, taken out a majority of gadaffy's fighting power, and set in place a peaceful transition process to a real representative government..

we need to either get out of the region or show real leadership.. a decision he has had two years to think over..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Adding fuel to the fire, Saudi Arabia stepped up its support for radical Wahhabi militants in the 1980s, nine of whom (including three army officers), were executed by the regime in 1987. As in other Arab states, government repression at home led many militant Libyan Islamists (estimated to be at least 500) to join the mujahideen fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Some returned to Libya in the early 1990s; others traveled to the Sudan, where Osama bin Laden had begun building what would become the al-Qaeda terrorist network, or took up residence in Britain.



These Libyan "Afghans" eschewed the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb al-Tahrir movements popular among the estranged ulama and began organizing their own network – one that aimed not at restoring clerical privileges, but at overthrowing the Qadhafi regime altogether and establishing an Islamic state.

it seems we sided with the devil again.... :shock: :?

Soaring unemployment, shortages of goods, and other economic ills stemming from the imposition of UN sanctions in 1992 made conditions in Libya ripe for an Islamist takeover. The emergence of this network also reflected regional trends. In Egypt and Algeria, Islamist militants were waging bloody insurgencies with support from Sudan.

and for as much as the left blamed Bush for everything...
Following 9/11, Qadhafi jumped at the opportunity to collaborate in the Bush administration's war on radical Islamist terrorism. Just weeks after the attacks, a CIA team flew to London to meet face to face with the man believed to have planned the 1988 Lockerbie bombing – Musa Kusa, the head of Libyan intelligence. Kusa provided the CIA (and also Britain's M16 foreign intelligence service) with the names of LIFG operatives and other Libyan Islamists who trained in Afghanistan, as well as dossiers on LIFG leaders living in the UK. In light of the central role of Libyan Afghans in al-Qaeda, this was a major intelligence windfall for the Bush administration.

maybe we should let this play out a bit longer and let a bunch of "freedom fighters" get martyred...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Tam said:
Steve said:
if I was president I would have welcomed a chance to destroy gadaffy and his army..

it is hard to argue with the logic of bombing Libya's army into a smoldering scrap heap.. but arming the rebels would be a really stupid move!

Especially if you don't know who the rebels are. Are they plain old Libyans wanting freedom from a murderous thug leader OR are they ALQueada, The Muslin Brotherhood or any number of other radical extremists looking for a country to control and base their attacks from? Before arming the rebels Obama and the rest of the world leaders better make sure the guns will not be pointed at Americans when the smoke clears. But from the recent reports they don't know who they are or what their intentions are.


Tam, they know very well who they are. This "Jihad" against Gaddafi has been going on for years. The Benghazi region is full of people that do not believe Gaddafi is "Muslim enough"

This rebellion started right after Gadaffi released a couple hundred political prisoners with ties to the LIFG


This is from a very good article about the history of Gaddafi and the Benghazi region that was written in 2005. It also goes into some detail about the British government helping the LIFG in fighting Gaddafi in the past.

Meanwhile, fierce clashes between security forces and Islamist guerrillas erupted in Benghazi in September 1995, leaving dozens killed on both sides. After weeks of intense fighting, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) formally declared its existence in a communiqué calling Qadhafi's government "an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty" and declaring its overthrow to be "the foremost duty after faith in God." [3]

3. Al-Hayat (London), 20 October 1995.”





"Prior to Qadhafi's seizure of power in 1969, Libya had long been ruled by the descendent­s of the 19th century Islamic revivalist leader Muhammad ibn al-Sanusi. Keenly aware that the endorsemen­t of the Sanusi religious establishm­ent was critical in the short run to his regime's legitimacy­, Qadhafi consulted frequently with ulama (clergy) during his early years in power and granted them positions of influence in the legal and educationa­l system. After consolidat­ing his authority, however, he sidelined the ulama, seized control of their mosques, and nationaliz­ed their awqaf (religious endowments­). Adding insult to injury, he propagated his own idiosyncra­tic version of the Islamic faith. [1] In a region where even slight deviations from religious orthodoxy are taboo, such tampering was nothing short of blasphemou­s. Those who objected to this heresy were brutally suppressed­. Most notably, prominent Salafi preacher Muhammad al-Bashti (who could hardly be considered a radical) was tortured to death by Libyan security forces in 1981. "


http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=308




Jihadists plot to take over Libya

U.S. steps up surveillance of suspects among rebels


Jihadists among the Libyan rebels revealed plans last week on the Internet to subvert the post-Moammar Gadhafi government and create an Islamist state, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.

U.S. officials said spy agencies are stepping up surveillance of Islamist-oriented elements among Libyan rebels. A government report circulated Tuesday said extremists were observed “strategizing” on Internet forums about how to set up an Islamist state in Libya after the regime of Col. Gadhafi is defeated.

“Several forum participants have suggested that, following a transitional stage, the battle should turn against secularist rebels and members of the [rebels’] Transitional National Council,” the unclassified report stated.

Some U.S. officials sought to play down the remarks by noting that such Internet postings are not always accurate measures of jihadist plans.

The report said the jihadists’ strength and influence on the ground “are uncertain at this time.”


A U.S. official familiar with intelligence reports on the region said there are concerns that some LIFG members remain committed to al Qaeda and others may be temporarily renouncing their ties to the terrorist group for “show.”
 
Top