Obama gears up for hard sell on Libya

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Yahoo News

WASHINGTON (AFP) - 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 (2330 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.

>

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.



Read more: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/9089922/obama-gears-up-for-hard-sell-on-libya/

---

See also :

President Barack Obama tonight plans to give the American people his justification for intervening in Libya and how it fits in with broader U.S. interests in the region as he faces questions from Congress and skepticism from the public.

With the U.S. now engaged in a third military action in a Muslim country, Obama is being challenged to show that his goals in Libya are achievable and won’t lead to a protracted commitment of troops and money.

Obama’s advisers stressed that by taking action in Libya, the president isn’t setting a policy for U.S. involvement in uprisings that have spread across North African and Middle Eastern countries including Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Syria and Bahrain.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-28/obama-confronts-congressional-questions-public-skepticism-in-libya-speech.html

[EFerrari]

1. I guess we weren't going broke fast enough.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Maybe it should've been named " Operation Accelerator"

instead of Odyssey Dawn.

[EFerrari]

9. "Operation Lead Foot"?

lol

Btw, watching all those people demonstrating over the weekend made me wish I was over there. :hi:

[dipsydoodle]

12. There were two distinct bunches at the weekend

What may have been a record number for the peaceful TUC meet in Hyde Park and the other crew just bent of destruction who seemed to land up with a record number of arrests some more serious than routine disturbing the peace / public disorder - e.g. breaking and entering which carries a 2 years max.

Hyde Park had been declared to be a family day of protest which was how it turned out - prolly just as well with children about in volume.

:hi:

Lead Balloon more like it. :)

[Arctic Dave]

2. cause ima war prezident..hehe.

I thought we got rid of that jackass and his idiotic ideology.

[Pirate Smile]

6. That is as divorced from reality as the crap the Republicans spew.

Not surprising though. There is a lot of that here now.

[EFerrari]

8. How is that divorced from reality?

I don't think I understand what you mean.

Obama has jumped into Libya without a plan and before that, he ramped up operations in Afghani quagmire.

How is he not a "war president"? Or, did you mean something else?

[Arctic Dave]

18. Are you saying someone has over ridden the president and decided to

fire missiles into Libya? Who would that be? Lie on the couch and tell me all the details.

[golddigger]

19. It's the Clinton's fault!

[GeorgeGist]

21. I take it you're cocksure.

[ixion]

25. yeah, because it's only the bad kind of bombing when it's an (R)

:eyes:

[ixion]

24. indeed...

it seems once at the controls, they just can't resist pressing the 'war' button.

[rabs]

4. In Brasilia and Santiago last week

Obama flat-out said "Gadaffi must GO."

Well, he hasn't.

Wondering whether Obama will "change" on that position in his speech tonight.

:hi:

[Catherina]

5. He can try as hard as he wants to. No sale. n/t

[Autumn]

7. I'm not buying what he's selling.

Enough is enough.

[CountAllVotes]

10. Hard sell Libya as you like Mr. President

However, I for one don't care how much you want to have this third war going on in the Middle East; it is not the kind of change I voted for. :mad:

When will YOU Mr. President learn the meaning of the word ENOUGH?

:dem:

[Canuckistanian]

11. Why? Why do wars need to be "sold"?

If the reason for war isn't painfully obvious, maybe you shouldn't be at war.

[Atypical Liberal]

17. +1000

Well said.

[plumbob]

23. Says it for me, too!

Out now.

[ixion]

26. spot on, that.

and it isn't a 'war', it's an act of aggression, in my opinion.

[Zorra]

13. Oh, no. I've seen this movie before. It's a heartbreaker.

It's tragic, so sad; it never fails to make me cry.

The ending is just crushing, and can fill you with despair.

(Spoiler alert: Multi-national corporate interests take over the government and infrastructure of the country. The native people are "re-educated" and are basically forced to become wage slaves dependent upon corporate jobs and products and no longer retain any possibility of maintaining any semblance of self-sufficiency. The government and people lose their sovreignity. A new corporate nation is built. The next independent rogue state is then targeted.)

It's another re-make of a very sad, old, old story.

And! The sequel is already in the works!:think:

Rumor has it that the name of the sequel will be "The Conquest of Venezuela".

[asjr]

14. By all means, let's pile on what Yahoo says. It is

not a "war." He has informed us what it is. It is saving people from a nutball who is out to murder anyone who gets in his way. What is it most of you do not understand? Is this just another reason for you to blast our president? Because frankly, that is what it sounds like. I have no idea how old most of you are and do not give a fig. It just galls me that so many are ready to jump on Pres. Obama just because they feel they can. It sickens me to see how far this blog has sunk since I first came here in 2002. At least there was some civility at that time. I have as much right as you to say what I feel and I am. But if you can't back our presidenet, who is a far cry from what we had for 8 years, why do you not go the the Republican blogs. There is more negativity here than we need. If you do not like what President Obama is doing go to D.C. and protest. Getting us into another war! That is stupid to think that way. If you remember he inherited all this crap and he can't get us out of it overnight or even 2-3 years. No wonder we have been called Ugly Americans! If you do not like what I say go ahead and put me on ignore and I am sure most have. I back my Democratic president and will continue to. I thank my stars it is not McCain at the helm.

[dipsydoodle]

15. Yahoo didn't say anything - they reposted AFP.

I'd actually picked it up from Bloomberg's LBN ticker.

[mazzarro]

16. The you are the one with the misplaced sense of obligation

Because the president is a Democrat then any shit ass decision he makes is fine with you. But some of us have been here even longer that you and have sense enough to think for ourselves and not just swallow whatever crap is coming down from on high. How come the same decision is not made with regards to Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and even Israel. Have these other countries not attacked civilians in their lands too?

[Atypical Liberal]

20. "not a war".

You know what? That "not a war" bullshit has been used for just about every "military conflict" the United States has been involved in since Korea.

This "not a war" bullshit is just a loophole that lets the United States engage in war without Congress having to go on record for voting for it.

It is saving people from a nutball who is out to murder anyone who gets in his way.

And of course it has nothing to do with the fact that Libya has oil. It's not like there are people around the globe suffering from dictators, but we conveniently choose to save one that's in the middle east.

Not to mention the fact that these "not a wars" are bleeding us dry at the very moment we are firing teachers and cutting public services because "we can't afford it".

So - we can afford to do nice things for the citizens of other countries but not for ourselves?

[GeorgeGist]

22. Good shill ...

but I'll wait for the finish.

[ixion]

27. *facepalm*

[KurtNYC]

28. This is worse than Iraq in some ways

Iraq was 'make up reasons, then ask permission from the UN then say the UN is irrelevant and invade anyway'. But this is 'shoot first, make up reasons later.' Look for Obama to give us a grab bag of reasons for this war and NONE of them will be the real reason. If he could make an honest case for this war he would have done so 2 weeks ago. But we are about to hear a lot of crap about "Democracy" and how this is not another Iraq. They have probably done focus groups and tested some bullshit reasons to see which one Americans are most likely to accept.

Here is my message to Obama and his PR team: WE ALREADY KNOW THIS IS ABOUT OIL (again).

The shelf life of lies has gotten much shorter in the last 10 years, so they now release the lies AFTER the war starts.

[sarcasmo]

29. Operation spend social security

[plumbob]

30. Just like a willow on the riverbank.

I will not be moved.

[damntexdem]

31. No, the rebels in Libya have geared up for the hard sell --

by going back on the offensive, which they have been able to do because of the air strikes. The intervention is working.

Obama does need to explain that to America; but it is not about the U.S., it is about Libya.

[gracchorumspes]

32. This is gonna be tough...

The timing of this conflict is not good. The reasons are kind of vague too: sure its noble to save people from an atrocity anywhere, but doesn't make it ignoble to ignore atrocities elsewhere? And are we entirely sure this has nothing to do with that black gold over there? We got that story before we committed long term to Iraq. I commend the President if he is sincere about extricating ourselves from another war (is our 3rd now?), but if it drags on to next year (isn't that an election year?), won't he be less inclined to "look weak" by scaling back military action? Finally, I fear that Republicans, who are already playing to the public's war fatigue, will take advantage of any disasters or failures involving US action. If the right is galvanized, the left will be demoralized (or join the right), and all this does not forebode good things for 2012, which is important, right? Anyway, I'm rambling...