FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

[Bowfinger]

I'm going to participate in a little exercise called fact checking the fact check.

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

FCFC: You cannot claim a fact for something that hasn't happened yet. Author is making an assumption based on the past. The President has already indicated the paradigm will change. We will know the answer to this in another 30 days.


OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

FCFC: Currently the military mission is preventing the slaughter of Libyan people. The overall objective is the ouster of MG. Again U.S. involvment could increase but hasen't happened yet. Again let's see in 30 days.


OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

FCFC: That so called fact check is totally unrealed to what Obama stated.


OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials

FCFC: Obama didn't say MG's ground forces were not a threat, so another fail.


OBAMA: "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."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated

FCFC: The sentance on its own is true but does not contradict Obamas statement. Fail.



There are many parts of our involvment in Libya that should be debated but the author is suggesting the President is factually misprepresenting what is going on any why we are involved and it is simply not true. Wonder how the author would handle the "mushroom cloud defense"

Exactly right, and very well done. The haters are ignoring you, of course.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Exactly right, and very well done. The haters are ignoring you, of course.

Those looking at reality are ignoring his knob slobbing, but hey, when has reality been a strong suit of your types.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Exactly right, and very well done. The haters are ignoring you, of course.

Right now I don't know what "exactly" is because it's too soon to know what's going on and where things are headed but at least he's doing better than Bush. Let's hope he limits our participation.

 

[Bowfinger]

Right now I don't know what "exactly" is because it's too soon to know what's going on and where things are headed but at least he's doing better than Bush. Let's hope he limits our participation.

Agreed. Obama would have to be a reckless idiot to get us bogged down in yet another full-scale "war." Unfortunately, that's not unthinkable based on his track record elsewhere.

By "exactly" I was agreeing that the OP is a hit piece that can't tell the difference between "fact" and speculation & insinuation. I thought HomerJS did a great job of showing how slanted it was. As you say, only time will tell whether Obama does this one the smart way or the Bush 43 way.

 

[etrigan420]

Those looking at reality are ignoring his knob slobbing, but hey, when has reality been a strong suit of your types.

Wow...

Just so I understand how this went down:

-HomerJS points out how the article posted in the OP may not really be a valid "What Obama said VS. Fact" argument.

-Bowfinger points out how, in his opinion, HomerJS might be on to something, and how "the haters" are ignoring HomerJS's post.

-You're accusing HomerJS of performing oral sex on other men, and saying that those agreeing with his assertion that the article in the OP may not be *fact* are somehow not "looking at reality"?

Did I get that about right?

Really? :hmm:

 

[BoberFett]

I guess we'll see what happens. Even Iraq didn't start out a complete clusterfuck. It didn't take very long though for the NO BLOOD FOR OIL BUSHITLER!!!!!! signs to come out.

 

[OutHouse]

Half a billion already spent on this "war". woot let keep spending.

makes you think, the old communist block countries (china Russia) arent pissing away trillions on wars. when was China last involved in a shooting war? 50 years ago? and Russia's Georgian campigan was two weeks long.

but hey lets keep electing warmongers to put the neck of america under the boot of china and Russia.

 

[trenchfoot]

OK, I get it. We should only let the repubs start wars and let the Dems finish them.....in disgrace. That way, the repubs can bitch about how the Dems don't know how to wage war and how the Dems are unpatriotic and are mamby-pambie socialist commie tree huggers....just like old times.

 

[BoberFett]

OK, I get it. We should only let the repubs start wars and let the Dems finish them.....in disgrace. That way, the repubs can bitch about how the Dems don't know how to wage war and how the Dems are unpatriotic and are mamby-pambie socialist commie tree huggers....just like old times.

So your answer to not liking Republicans and their illegal wars is to start some of your own?

Jesus H Christ, this country is well and truly fucked because of morons like you.

 

[trenchfoot]

So your answer to not liking Republicans and their illegal wars is to start some of your own?

Jesus H Christ, this country is well and truly fucked because of morons like you.

I'm wondering how the hell you could glean that out of my post?

Moron? Really? Your post seems rather self-descriptive from where I'm sitting.

 

[Doppel]

That's an editorial/opinion piece, not a fact checking article.

Absolutely right. It was quite weak. It was biased nonsense with most of the "facts" not contradicting his points at all.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm wondering how the hell you could glean that out of my post?

Moron? Really? Your post seems rather self-descriptive from where I'm sitting.

How else was I supposed to read your post? You were pissed of that only Republicans were starting wars and leaving them for Democrats, and that wasn't fair.

 

[Todd33]

It is fun watching liberals try to defend Obama's war for oil.

Oil? I always figured the whole thing was keeping the regime change in the Arab world rolling. I bet there are a bunch brass telling him he could help remake the middle east and surrounding region by helping the grass roots.

If this were about Oil, why not just keep the status quo?

 

[werepossum]

How else was I supposed to read your post? You were pissed of that only Republicans were starting wars and leaving them for Democrats, and that wasn't fair.

In Obama's defense, I'm sure he's willing to be President for as long as it takes to get us out of Libya.

 

[bfdd]

Oil? I always figured the whole thing was keeping the regime change in the Arab world rolling. I bet there are a bunch brass telling him he could help remake the middle east and surrounding region by helping the grass roots.

If this were about Oil, why not just keep the status quo?

Because leaders from the West decided to call for Ghaddafi's exit less than a week after the rebellion started. Sides were picked, status quo was impossible to keep the moment they opened their mouths.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Wow...

Just so I understand how this went down:

-HomerJS points out how the article posted in the OP may not really be a valid "What Obama said VS. Fact" argument.

-Bowfinger points out how, in his opinion, HomerJS might be on to something, and how "the haters" are ignoring HomerJS's post.

-You're accusing HomerJS of performing oral sex on other men, and saying that those agreeing with his assertion that the article in the OP may not be *fact* are somehow not "looking at reality"?

Did I get that about right?

Really? :hmm:

HomerJS didn't do anything but insert his opinion by dismissing or misconstruing the points made to fit his statements via his so called "FCFC".

Why would anyone argue with someone that is saying "Oh...that isn't a fact because I don't believe it or won't acknowledge it as being one."

Responding to such a post would be a giant waste of time as any through review of the on going current events in Libya by just going to Yahoo news basically disproves his comments and makes him out to look like a Obama fan club lap dog.

 

[Axon]

I just don't like that Obama did this and I want another chance to s**t on him, I'd be on its [Libya operation's] cock if it was a republican move.

...

too honest?