More

Obama's Libya Speech Fact Checked: How The Claims Fit The Facts

Obama Libya Speech Factcheck

CALVIN WOODWARD and RICHARD LARDNER   03/28/11 09:14 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion – coordinated or not – to advance an offensive.

Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

___

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.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors – Britain and France – combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

___

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.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces – and on the supply and communications links that support them – is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

___

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.

"The president does not have the 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," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."

___

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.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."

Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."

___

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.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so – by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

___

Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending...
WASHINGTON — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending...
Filed by Cara Parks  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,150
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (35 total)
  1 of 6  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
Beatriz09 12:47 PM on 03/29/2011
Strange article. I thought that fact-checking means comparing an idea about a fact to that fact. This article is comparing sentences to other aspects of/opinions about the situation the idea is refering to.
 
An example:
 
"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  Read More...
lqw
Justmyopinion
08:06 AM on 04/04/2011
"The United States was supposed to have significantly begun dropping its participation in airstrikes over Libya.
"Due to poor weather conditions over the last few days in Libya, the United States has approved a request by NATO to extend the use of some U.S. strike aircraft," NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu told ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/nato-asks-us-continue-libya-air-strikes/story?id=13287530
lqw
Justmyopinion
08:02 AM on 04/04/2011
Is tha a halo around Obama's head ?
Look at the picture with this article.
07:09 PM on 03/30/2011
New Rules: 2011 Criteria to Bomb a Country.10.The US Government needs to spend more money. 9. The US Economy is semi-bankrupt. 8. The total debt of the US is more than the GDP for any given year in history. 7. We have no clue as to who are the rebels and who represents them. 6. The UN Security Council passes a resolution with typical unclear language. 5. The local President/Dictator cannot be overthrown. 4. There will not be US troops on the ground. 3. The country is somewhere in Africa. 2. The country is somewhere. 1. The local leader uses a funny hat.
07:03 PM on 03/30/2011
Obama was not being truthful when he claimed that Qaddafi was going to kill everyone in Benghazi.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
patches12
03:53 PM on 03/30/2011
ahhh yes.. buried way down here... we find this little article how convenient for the Obama drones

Hey - here is something else... some dark things going on in Obama's Afghan war

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/29/video-rumsfeld-kill-team-photos-worse-abu-ghraib/

Lets see if we can blame this on Bush????
photo
Kasado
en jolt of terminus
02:49 PM on 03/30/2011
Just how do we define 'civilian casualties'? Is the rebel with a AK, one? Is the family hidding in a apartment/bunker, one? Is Caddafi just defending himself (power) or is he targeting residents and are the rebels in the residences using it for cover?
I hope we are not for seeing the future with predictions of innocent killings that may or may not have occured to justify another war. (i.e: Iraq has chemical and may give them to our enemies) Also with ulterior motives. Oil
Collateral Damage, most probably from all sides. It's just a biproduct of war.
"Sorry Iraq. That the US had to badly harm you and your country to find one man"
photo
colourful
To Change or Make a Difference
02:25 PM on 03/30/2011
The UN Security Council (for which we are a member) decided that something needed to be done to prevent slaughter. ... Each member of the counsel is given an assigned task to carry out on the mission, but no one is expected to actually K ! L L Gadhafi. Why is that a failed plan?

Have we ever heard the term “leveling the playing field?” You know, the process of giving the under-dog an opportunity. … Not giving him the success, yet permitting his access to the path of success.

We say, okay Gadhafi, we are going to weaken your ability to massacre your people through military action on your weapons, but we are not going to kill you. Although we aren’t going to kill you, we will use every other means to destroy you. AND, should it be necessary to revisit this issue, we can.

Media, it would serve our society well if you didn’t act like Chicken Little, who screamed the sky was falling because an acorn fell on his head. You have the duty of remaining calm until you have all the facts, and if possible, minimize the number of times you say you don’t understand (on television/radio).
11:17 AM on 03/30/2011
The obama doctrine: empty words, capriciously applied.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Jaxy
Bah! My micro-bio didn't meet your guidelines
03:17 AM on 03/30/2011
There is no doubt that had the U.S. and other members of this multinational coalition not intervened, Ghaddafi would've slaughtered a lot more people and we'd be ashamed for letting that happen, unchecked. Remember out inaction during the Rwandan genocide of 1994, during which over 800,000 people were killed? I am not in favor of war, but I'm glad we took a principled stance, in this situation.
11:20 AM on 03/30/2011
There is no doubt that had the U.S. and other members of the coalition of the unwilling had intervene two weeks earlier, thousand of lives would have been saved and gaddafi would have been ousted. There are thousands of victime being killed in Africa every day. Is the obama regime going to protect them? What principle is it that only gets applied once?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Jaxy
Bah! My micro-bio didn't meet your guidelines
04:01 PM on 03/30/2011
I am unclear where you glean your apparent certainty that had we intervened earlier, Ghaddafi would have been ousted. I think that such a statement is fairly speculative. Nonetheless, viewing that the existing coalition had to be approached and formed - it wasn't just sitting around waiting to deploy at the drop of a hat - the United States was correct in seeking the assistance and commitment of other like-minded nations to establish a No-Fly Zone, etc. You know, as opposed to barging into Libya under some kind of weird pretext.
12:37 PM on 03/30/2011
There is no doubt that had Libya not been an oil rich country no one would have intervened. Bombing people is never humanitarian.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Jaxy
Bah! My micro-bio didn't meet your guidelines
03:56 PM on 03/30/2011
I don't know that Libya's oil reserves are the SOLE reason for the intervention. Ghaddafi was/is a major supporter of terrorism, some of which has actually affected Americans and Europeans.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Jaxy
Bah! My micro-bio didn't meet your guidelines
03:05 AM on 03/30/2011
A keen observer of deadly foreign conflicts, Peter Godwin, opined that what sets Libya and Ghaddafi apart from other repressive regimes and strongmen (and therefore, necessitated intervention) is: 1. Terrorism and 2. Oil. Libya has a history of exporting the former. And has the potential of disrupting the global market of the latter.
11:23 AM on 03/30/2011
So oil is obama's motivation? We don't use Libya's oil. Why should we be involved in the forst place? And if their is no oil, can people expect the the U.S. not to get involved?
12:39 PM on 03/30/2011
Ah, but the oil companies that run our country can make a tidy profit off of Libya's oil. It doesn't matter that it doesn't end us consumed in the U.S.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Jaxy
Bah! My micro-bio didn't meet your guidelines
11:25 PM on 03/30/2011
I do not speak for the Administration. I think the President has been quite clear on what his motivation is, in this matter.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TWhitley
03:59 AM on 03/31/2011
I am also a keen observer of foreign conflicts ;^), and I hasten to point out that Ghaddafi had the bad judgment to use planes and tanks against his own civilian populace. Now, tanks and planes are just exactly the armaments most easily targeted by a no-fly zone. Had the leaders in other conflicts also used planes and tanks--instead of the usual roving bands of gangs, police, and army troops--their countries could also have been put under a no-fly restriction. But, foot troops on the ground mixed in with the general populace whom they are attacking can only be opposed by other ground forces. Meaning: only an aggressive invasion can counter those troops to save the civilians--an aggressive invasion which is in direct violation of the UN Charter. That is one reason why the UN is particularly wary about those situations. [In addition to the polar nature of international relations combined with the veto power of the Security Council nations.] Whenever a government has the bad judgment to use big armaments to oppress their people, the UN can use and has used the no-fly option to intervene. Otherwise, not so much.

I won't say oil has no role in the UN's decision on Libya vs. Sudan and other trouble spots, but I think there's this bigger tactical issue that suffices largely to explain when they act and when they don't.
photo
Dec2086Lover
After all you are my wonderwall.
03:15 PM on 03/31/2011
Great point!
11:28 PM on 03/29/2011
This is not a “fact check.” Claiming the U.S. “will not be taking a back seat” to NATO is an opinion. NATO's military operations are directed by Italian Admiral Giampaolo di Paola.

It is an opinion that “the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.” Efforts to protect civilian lives “are undeniably helping the rebels to advance.” But that’s not an escalation. Ending those efforts would also undeniably allow Gadhafi to attack civilians. The end game is Gadhafi's end.

Rebel gains may be tenuous, but the same was true throughout the Continental Army’s war against the most powerful, well-equipped army in the world.

Although mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, Obama pointed out, “that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.”

Obama’s actions do not contradict his view that "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands" the U.S. will lack legitimacy. On March 1, the Senate unanimously voted for Resolution 85, calling for “the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” On March 17, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973, sanctioning a no-fly zone and the use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians. The no-fly zone began on March 19.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anfanger1
01:19 AM on 03/30/2011
you've learned the line really well. maybe you can get a job at fox
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
01:30 AM on 03/30/2011
You need to brush up on your critical thinking skills.  Your ad hominem attack skills appear to be pretty well honed already.  Maybe you can get a job... somewhere...
01:58 PM on 03/30/2011
I thought the article's first point, about NATO, at least provided useful information and perspective which could be used to counter the Administration's position. But so much of the rest was simply not a "Fact Check" -- as jsob and some others have pointed out. The format is Fact (Claimed Fact) / Counter Fact (or Supporting Fact) but the Facts and Counter Facts don't even line up with each other. The constitutional issue is a worthy topic of discussion -- but it doesn't counter the claim of a "strategic interest". Pointing out Qaddafi's continued military superiority doesn't counter the fact that the advance was stopped, at least for a time. And that's relevant because some of the concern was that the no-fly zone operation came too late to make a difference.

That so many people can't make this basic critical skill distinction shows who's "learned their lines really well". And that that is all they have learned.
- Craig
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
01:28 AM on 03/30/2011
F&F for your critical thinking skills.  What passes for facts these days shreds the imagination...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blackranger
11:01 PM on 03/29/2011
Anyone following the story in Libya closely would notice that when the US turned over control to NATO, the rebels stopped getting the protection they had before. I think it is sad that we gave them some hope, only to send them to their death with NATO making oh, so, sure, that they did not offend anyone. There is a blood bath going on now for sure.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pinouye
12:25 AM on 03/30/2011
I totally agree with you. This war was not planned out properly. All the criticism that President Obama railed against President GWBush has come back to haunt him. No plan, no exit strategy, no goal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
01:44 AM on 03/30/2011
"All the criticism?"  Really?
 
You mean, GW Bush invaded Iraq with the backing of a UN resolution, and a coalition of ten nations including two three Muslim countries?  And GW Bush invaded without using ground troops, and only by enforcing a no-fly zone and targeting Lybian armored forces preparing to shell Libya's own civilians.  Yeah, Obama is following the Bush formula alright-- NOT.
 
So, instead of stopping the advancing column of Gadhaffi's tanks, Obama and NATO should have ignored that and spent more time "planning."  Yeah, that would have helped.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
01:40 AM on 03/30/2011
Your conflating of opposition setbacks with US turning over control of the no fly zone to NATO as a cause an effect relationship.  The mere fact that two events roughly coincide does not establish a cause and effect relationship.  That's what is called "superstitious thinking." 
 
For example, one might argue that breast feeding leads to heroin addiction because the vast majority of heroin addicts were breast fed.
 
What evidence do you have that the No-Fly Zone has eroded ever since control of it was turned over to NATO?  If you do have any, please be so kind as to include links to independently verifiable sources.
 
Thanks.
photo
Si1ver1ock
So long, and thanks for all the fish...
09:52 PM on 03/29/2011
Interesting picture.

I was wondering when the presidential halo would return. Last time I saw it Bush Jr. was invading Iraq.

Here it is-->http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2004/01/bush-halo-sighting.html
photo
rhurc4
why am i always getting censored?
09:50 PM on 03/29/2011
This is Obama's war for oil. Quite literally.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hjalmar
May the dawn soon come.
12:21 AM on 03/30/2011
O is simply fulfilling his promises to those who fast-tracked him into the presidency.
photo
Bassplayer27
There's A Riot Goin On...
09:36 PM on 03/29/2011
The Senate approved by unanimous consent - Senate resolution 85 on March 1st, which among other things states:

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

This was consented by the hypocrite bagga Rand Paul; flying in the face of his 180 response to the presidents speech.

I wonder if these people have souls...
photo
Mister Serene
Say your prayers, varmint!
10:15 PM on 03/29/2011
Thank you for bringing some sanity to these posts. Similarly, what don't libs and righties understand about taking humanitarian action when you think you can make difference in saving lives? Libya has been ruled by a mad man with a son who wants to follow in his Dad's footsteps.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anfanger1
01:24 AM on 03/30/2011
the son of qadaffi was the head of a foundation to promote democracy and civil rights when he was forced to resign a few weeks ago, and return to lybia to help defend his country from a civil war.
10:17 PM on 03/29/2011
Congress did not pass this resolution, only the senate.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/2011/03/23/getting-libya-right/

Whereas according to article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution, `The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water'; and

Whereas according to the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), `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.'

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.31:
photo
Bassplayer27
There's A Riot Goin On...
11:37 PM on 03/29/2011
You are correct, only the senate passed this resolution - by unanimous consent. Rand Paul is a US Senator and totally contradicted his claims in the GOP response.

It's as much blatant hypocrisy as Newt, et al.

There is plenty of precedent for use of US military in recent history:

The Iran hostage rescue attempt (1980)
Military exercises in Honduras (1983)
U.S. marines in a multinatio­nal force in Lebanon (1982–1983­)
Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Bombing of Libya (1986)
Invasion of Panama (1989)
No-fly zone post Gulf War (1991)
Humanitari­an mission to Somalia (1992–1994­), and
Bombing of Kosovo (1999)

In all of these cases, members of Congress have complained that the president had not fully complied with the War Powers Resolution­.
photo
Barbara DeZan
Knowledge is Power
08:23 PM on 04/02/2011
The House doesn't vote on Senate resolution. This type of event doesn't require the House to "approve".

Rand is a lying little squirrel....he had the opportunity to vote "no".,...but he didn't. The bill passed unanimously.

It's unfortunately he has a full term as Senator. He isn't minimally qualified to hold that position.

And, the Baggers believe his lies. Why? Because they never fact check anything...but believe anything these &^((((&%% tell 'em.

I feel so bad for the people of Kentucky. Rand Paul is an embarassment to themm for sure.