Obama's Hard Sell on Libya in Tonights State Of The Union

Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:39 pm » by **Savwafair2012**

http://www.rawstory.com/rs//wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Obama.podium.afp_.jpg

US President Barack Obama prepared Monday to give a prime-time address to the nation aimed at winning the support of a war-weary American public for the military intervention in Libya.

After inheriting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president finds himself embroiled in yet another conflict, this time one of his own choosing and one that many at home are not convinced by.

In his address at 7:30 pm (2320 GMT) from the National Defense University in Washington, Obama must win over a largely skeptical public preoccupied by domestic economic concerns and unclear what the Libya endgame is.

Obama, who has been criticized since military action began nine days ago for not getting his message across, will also give interviews on Tuesday with the anchors of three US television networks, the White House said.

Lawmakers, including many from Obama's own Democratic Party, are angry that Congress was not consulted before troops were deployed and have raised concerns that the Libya mission is ill-defined and the exit strategy unclear.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

On the eve of one of the president's most important foreign policy speeches to date, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took to the Sunday news talkshows to answer his critics.

They argued that the United States had to intervene quickly in Libya for humanitarian reasons and also made a broader case that inaction would have had disastrous knock-on effects for the region.

"It was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest," Gates told ABC's "This Week" program, pointing to the possibility of a mass exodus of refugees that could have overwhelmed Tunisia and Egypt.

"So you had a potentially significantly destabilizing event taking place in Libya that put at risk potentially the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt.

"Egypt is central to the future of the Middle East," Gates added.

Speaking alongside him, Clinton urged critics to ask themselves where things would be now if the United States had not intervened.

"Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled... either with nowhere to go or overwhelming Egypt while it's in its own difficult transition," she said.

"The cries would be, 'why did the United States not do anything? How could you stand by when, you know, France, and the United Kingdom, and other Europeans, and the Arab League, and your Arab partners were saying, 'You've got to do something?'"

The pair also sought to allay fears that the United States would get bogged down in a protracted conflict in Libya by highlighting the limited scope of the mission and, in particular, of the US role in that mission.

Obama's position was made easier Sunday when NATO ambassadors agreed in Brussels to take command of all Libyan operations, but the United States was still clearly bearing the brunt of the military burden.

On the ground in Libya rebel forces were gaining momentum, as, aided by coalition air strikes, they wrested back control of key towns from Kadhafi's retreating ground forces and pressed on westwards towards Tripoli.

The United States and its allies are hopeful that Kadhafi's regime will eventually crack and dread a long drawn-out conflict that could test the political will of their patchwork coalition.

Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:58 pm » by **Savwafair2012**

In case you missed it

What Is Reverse Speech you might ask

Upload to Disclose.tv

Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:04 pm » by **Boondox681**

wattup sav good post
i posted this on march 20th.

i've found a little move i use to accurately predict the future.
when a politician,newscaster or any person in a position of power says ANYTHING....
take the complete opposite,and there will be the conclusion.
try it.it works every time.

peace

Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:26 am » by **Sceptilief**

I heard: "Blah! Blah! American Interests! Blah! Blah! :vomit:

Nobel Peace Prize! Blah! American Interests! Blah! Blah! :vomit:

Justified use of Weapons of Destruction! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! :vomit:

NATO is now an official Global War Machine. Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! :vomit:

Don't forget to pay your taxes!"

My burning question for this corrupt leader is: What is Freedom if a People is not Free to take it by their choice? What victory have your robbed these people of earning themselves?

In other words, when freedom is forced upon a people without consent, regardless of the previous situation, it is still forced and therefore, not freedom.

Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:41 am » by **Cia212**

In Libya, the "youth protest" ball stopped rolling and Obama & Co. wanted to keep it going...to hell with the law or public opinion or even the next election. What's happing in the middle east is more important to this administration than anything. I still don't see why.

Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:48 am » by **Poe2you**

sceptilief wrote:I heard: "Blah! Blah! American Interests! Blah! Blah! Nobel Peace Prize! Blah! American Interests! Blah! Blah! Justified use of Weapons of Destruction! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! NATO is now an official Global War Machine. Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Don't forget to pay your taxes!"

My burning question for this corrupt leader is: What is Freedom if a People is not Free to take it by their choice? What victory have your robbed these people of earning themselves?

In other words, when freedom is forced upon a people without consent, regardless of the previous situation, it is still forced and therefore, not freedom.

Loved your response, very enthusiastic, though I sense some sort of undertone, LOL.

You make a very valid statement. They are merely pawns at that point. There is something to be said about earning it yourself, but America did have help. They are definitely outgunned. Unfortunately, like you, I think the Allies intentions are not so noble.

What I find very interesting is today they are second guessing helping them, maybe even arming them in the same breath, but now are realizing there could be terrorists among them? You take about mindless action. These people are so smart, they are stupid.

Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:03 am » by **Mediasorcerer**

boondox681 wrote:wattup sav good post
i posted this on march 20th.
i've found a little move i use to accurately predict the future.
when a politician,newscaster or any person in a position of power says ANYTHING....
take the complete opposite,and there will be the conclusion.
try it.it works every time.

peace

hey,thats my technique!

everything about "news" is a paradox,

Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:46 am » by **Disorganizer81**

Normally, a President of a Constitutional Republic would GIVE. This speech BEFORE the bombing the piss out of another country started. Who does this kenyan think he is?

Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:59 pm » by **Boondox681**

hey,thats my technique!

everything about "news" is a paradox,

that shit works,eh? :flop: