Obama has lost me, over the bullshit lies and euphemisms with regards to Libya.

[howard112211]

I'm sorry, I cannot tolerate hypocrisy and blatant lies about one's goals.

I guess here is the part where I state that I am still going to vote D because of Palin and the teabaggers.

[liberal N proud]

1. So who's your choice in the GOP circus

Palin, Bachmann, Trumph, Hucklebee or Barbour.

Enjoy that time under the GOP regime.

[howard112211]

2. "We suck but they suck more."

[lbrtbell]

22. OP said he's going to vote Democratic

That's what "I am still going to vote D because of Palin and the teabaggers" means. ;)

[cali]

3. aw come on, he lost you long before this.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. How do you know he's lying?

Do you have information the rest of us don't have?

[Ian David]

5. The Underpants Gnomes told him so. n/t

[GKirk]

7. You have a good point...

it would be nice if the OP pointed out a statement Obama made that he feels is a lie or one of teh euphemisms he says he stated.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Exactly. It's one thing to disagree with the decision to use military force

re: Libya -- many people do; I'm ambivalent myself. But so far I'm not aware that the decision was based on lies (unlike Bush and Iraq and the nonexistent WMDs). If an actual lie can be identified I'd appreciate it so I can be indignant too.

[lbrtbell]

27. Why does he have to?

He's not asking anybody else to share his opinion. He's just saying that Obama has lost him.

If he were trying to ram his opinion down our throats, then there would be reason to demand evidence. But he's got the right to bitch about something he's upset about, and declare a decision he's made, without having to explain it. If he likes vanilla ice cream better than strawberry, and says so on a forum, who cares--it's his opinion. If he tries to feed you vanilla ice cream when you prefer strawberry, then you have every reason to be upset about it.

This is his symbolic dish of ice cream, so I don't care if he wants to fill it with dog poop, as long as he's not feeding it to me.

FWIW, I haven't yet formed an opinion on Libya, so I don't agree or disagree with him. As long as he's going to vote for Dems in 2012, that's all that matters.

[howard112211]

9. It is pretty clear that "casualty prevention" is not the objective but rather "regime change".

This should have been stated from the outset.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. How is it "pretty clear"? And what was the lie?

[howard112211]

13. Rebels are being given air support to advance towards Tripoli.

If preventing civilians casualties was the main goal here, a cease fire would have been enforced.

[joshcryer]

14. No they're not, if they were Sirte would be razed and they'd be well on their way.

As it stands now they're way back in Ras Lanuf, having lost two gains.

[howard112211]

16. NATO has the means to enforce a cease fire.

They should to that, at this point.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. So now you are questioning the military strategy

and making assumptions about what it means. They military people may have concluded this air support was necessary to prevent further slaughter of civilians. Maybe you have an inside track to the generals and NATO that we don't have, but you still haven't identified any lies.

[howard112211]

20. I fail to see how bombing targets in Tripoli prevents slaugther in Sirte.

[joshcryer]

21. LOL.

Sirte is a Gaddafi stronghold. NATO could've razed it, and allowed the rebels to advance.

The rebels only "advanced" because pro-Gaddafi retreated after three bombing runs on Ajdabiya. It was likely strategic because they have effectively lost nothing. Get the rebels scattering across the desert, stretch their supply lines, then beat back.

There are tanks bombarding Misrata as we type but NATO isn't hitting them because they're in the city. Gaddafi learned another lesson there. Park your tanks inside the city and you are immune.

[howard112211]

24. That he would pull tanks into populated areas at some point

was obvious to anyone thinking a few steps a head.

So now what?

We have a stalemate. Time to partition the country. Or send ground troops...

[joshcryer]

25. That is what cease fire means, you know. Two state solution.

West Libya = North Korea

East Libya = South Korea

The Libyans aren't so keen on that idea, though.

[Amonester]

30. Both U.K. and France (and Italy, I think) stated clearly that Gadhafi has lost

ALL and ANY credibility to govern anything else than his undepants when he will sit in his cell.

(Maybe not the exact words but, close).

How do you think his 'highly' hypothetical (which stands no chance of happening) 'West Libya' will do any 'business' in the 'region'?

With who?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. But what is the lie?

You say you fail to see how the current military strategy accomplishes the goal of preventing slaughter of civilians. Are there civilians in places other than Sirte that need protecting? Maybe there are. You are *assuming* a motive based on what you *assume* the military operation is doing, but maybe something is going on that you actually don't know about.

Until I see evidence that somebody - the President or the military people - is lying about this, I will simply withhold judgment and await the outcome.

[howard112211]

26. Ok, you have convinced me, and I have to admit

there is a little more intuition about how the "situation as a whole" looks involved here. You may call it guessing. I call it extrapolating from other experiences.

[howard112211]

28. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x769310

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nation Susan Rice said on Tuesday the U.S. administration has not ruled out providing military support and arms supplies to Libyan rebels. In an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" show, she said the U.S. goal was "squeezing Gaddafi's resources and cutting off his money, his mercenaries, his arms, providing assistance to the rebels and the opposition."

Sounds like regime change to me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. If getting rid of Gaddafi prevents the further slaughter of civilians,

doesn't that accomplish the goal? In Iraq, the actual goal was regime change, period, and they lied about the WMDs and all that other stuff. Here, the goal is protecting civilians, and unseating Gaddafi may be incidental to or a part of that goal. I'm not sure why removing Gadaffi would be a such a bad thing if doing so protects the population.

[joshcryer]

15. They probably hoped that airstrikes would help motivate the rebels to continue on...

...but they have no power over that. They didn't fire upon Sirte's tanks because Sirte is not a rebel stronghold and nor was Sirte being bombarded. They're following the UN resolution.

[Arkana]

29. So despite every piece of evidence and statements to the contrary

you still believe this?

You know what other group of voters stubbornly cling to preconceived notions in the face of mountains of evidence that prove otherwise?

Yep.

[gateley]

6. I interpreted it differently - I thought he acknowledged the interests in the area

we have, blah, blah, blah. I think this speech was political and what any country's leader would have given. I don't think he was trying to convince anybody of anything, just something he had to do. :shrug: He knows WE know the goings-on behind the scenes, and those that don't aren't really paying any attention anyway.

But regardless of how you feel (although I'm sorry you feel let down, I know how that feels -- happened a lot lately), I do appreciate your willingness to hold your nose and vote to help keep out the R's. What is happening in WI, FL, OH and elsewhere shows just how bad they CAN be (worse than we thought!)

:pals:

[damntexdem]

8. Obama has regained more of me with Libya -- he is doing what is necessary.

But he still loses me over caving to the GOP on domestic issues.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. He lost me and many other teachers awhile back

Welcome to the club.

[hardcover]

19. That's another thing that really took me by surprise. Actually more like a shock.

[femmocrat]

34. +1000 n/t

[madrchsod]

32. i figured that out awhile ago...

yup, he`s better than the republicans.

[Siouxmealso]

33. We seem to forget

that the original mission was to implement a no-fly zone so, as Obama had said, Gaddafi's military couldn't bomb and strafe the rebels. This might also include taking out air defenses to protect our planes from being shot at. This was to be the limited scope that was designed to "prevent the slaughter of innocent civilian lives" as he said in his speech. Fine. I bought all that.

But now we have planes bombing Gaddafi's troops and military assets that have nothing to do with air defenses and now Hillary is talking about arming these unknown "rebel" forces to level the battlefield. That's taking sides in a civil war and that's where we should all jump off the band wagon.

[killbotfactory]

35. Oh that poor, poor Gaddafi!

Let us all pray for him in his time of need.

Bad Obama! Bad! Bad!

[midnight armadillo]

36. Or rather let's think of ourselves

Imagine if the Obama administration put this much effort into smashing the power centers on Wall St and put that $550 million spent so far into the start of a new Works Progress Administration.

Libya is all about taking vengeance on Gaddafi who's been a thorn in the side of the West for decades. It has nothing to do with protecting Libyan lives.

[Ramulux]

37. Good for you

Its sickening listening to democrats sell this absurd war.