Mission Accomplished

http://www.shallownation.com/2011/03/26/president-obama-libya-speech-video-march-28-2011-address-at-national-defense-university/

“And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.”

Barack Obama, March 28, 2011





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/misrata-carnage-gaddafi-attacks-rebels_n_842155.html

'Carnage Beyond Imagination' In Misrata As Gaddafi Pounds Rebels

03/29/11 04:08 PM ET

Rebels in the Libyan city of Misrata said they were under intense attack on Tuesday by forces loyal to leader Muammar Gaddafi, and they appealed to governments meeting in London to help them.
"Gaddafi's forces are launching intensive and vicious military campaigns against us in Misrata," rebel spokesman Mohamed said by satellite telephone. "They are determined to capture the city. Today was tough for the rebels."
………
CNN quoted a witness in the city as saying: "The carnage and the destruction and the human suffering from both the evictions and ... terrorizing the city -- it's beyond imagination," said the witness, an opposition councilman in Misrata, in western Libya. "It's incredible."
In London, where more than 40 governments and international bodies were meeting to discuss Libya's future, British Prime Minister David Cameron said: "As I speak, people in Misrata continue to suffer murderous attacks from the regime."
………
Cut off from the main rebel area in the east of Libya, accounts from Misrata speak of bombardments killing dozens of people, sniper fire and food and water running out.
"The humanitarian situation is catastrophic. There is a shortage of food and medicine. The hospital is no longer able to deal with the situation," the rebel spokesman Sami said.
………
"Gaddafi's troops are moving on to Misrata again, shelling residential areas with tanks and mortars," said the doctor, who did not want to be named because he feared reprisals against family members inside Libya.







So, who ya gonna believe?
Obama, or them stinkin', lyin' rebels?

Man, you just love out of context quotes. don't you? The full text of the speech and the video are available on the page that you linked to, so you really don't have any excuse.

And keep in mind this is still just an excerpt from his speech. In order to provide the proper context, the speech must be considered in its entirety.

Quote :

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gadhafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gadhafi declared he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted — if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.

Did you even bother to watch the speech? Because I really don't recall the President saying anything that even remotely suggested that the battles in Libya were over. He was simply acknowledging the fact that Gadaffi's forces had been stopped from advancing on Benghazi.

Like I said, the speech should be considered in its entirety. When you view the speech or read the text, it's clear to any honest person that the President never said anything at all that implied that the fighting was over in Libya.

If you really want to talk about "facts," then I suggest you actually watch the President's speech first. A look at a map of Libya wouldn't hurt you any, either. Hint - Look at where Benghazi and Ajdabiya are located.

Wow. They're really, really desperate to absolve the previous administration from it's complete and utter disaster in Iraq. It's quite entertaining.

happy jack wrote:

Interference in Iraq bad...

Which we all now know for certain. It ended exactly as Osama predicted it would when he brought down the towers.

happy jack wrote:

...interference in Libya good.

Not from where I'm sitting. I know Fox News portrays the left as slathering all over our "Messiah", but from the myriad blog sites, news stories that I've read, the radio shows I've heard and the conversations I've had, it's been anything but "Go Obama!"

They are, however, capable of distinguishing between no fly zones and full scale invasions. Scale, in this case, actually matters.

happy jack wrote:

This whole shootin' match has barely even started.
More to come, fo’ sho’–break out the popcorn.

So which side of the fence are you on? If it's as similar to the situation in Iraq as you claim, this was a good move, right?

Heretic wrote:

Wow. They're really, really desperate to absolve the previous administration from it's complete and utter disaster in Iraq. It's quite entertaining.

Yeah,and they're quite pissed off at Obama. He had the audacity to first get Americans out,then launch some cruise missles and participate in air strikes to weaken and take out their defense systems,and then had the gall to hand further involvement off to NATO. In other words,he did everything right.

Thank goodness he's our President and not John McCain..

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

So which side of the fence are you on?

I don't know yet, Heretic.
I'm still waiting for the explanation from our eloquent president as to how these attacks on a distant, sovereign nation are of vital interest to the United States.
When that is explained to me satisfactorily, I will assess the explanation and possibly reach a decision. If and when I do, I will get back to you.

The President has already given the rationale for the military action.

Again, read or watch the speech...because that's the only "explanation" that you're going to get...

It seems to me that the time to "assess the explanation" and "reach a decision" is now.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I don't know yet, Heretic.
I'm still waiting for the explanation from our eloquent president as to how these attacks on a distant, sovereign nation are of vital interest to the United States.
When that is explained to me satisfactorily, I will assess the explanation and possibly reach a decision. If and when I do, I will get back to you.

The President has already given the rationale for the military action.

Again, read or watch the speech...because that's the only "explanation" that you're going to get...

It seems to me that the time to "assess the explanation" and "reach a decision" is now.

I read the text of the speech and, I'm sorry, but I cannot find any national interests he cited which would justify an attack on a sovereign nation. If you would direct me to what you consider to be these vital national interests, I would appreciate it.
As I said, I merely read the text of the speech. Perhaps if I actually listen to it, his golden, mellifluous voice will persuade me that all is well and that unicorns will soon be prancing in the streets of Benghazi.

Yeah, well let me say first of all, that it is incredible to me that you haven't taken 30 minutes of your time to watch a major address by the President of the United States. I don't even understand that kind of mentality. Maybe it's just me, but it just seems like we should show more than a passing interest, especially when our country is involved in military action.

You claim that you "read" the speech, but if that's true, then I don't see how you could have missed this portion of it...

Quote :

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all — even in limited ways — in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.

It's true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country — Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. 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.

Moreover, America 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. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution's future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

There it is, Jack. Those are the "interests" that he cited. You're free to disagree with the rationale, of course. But don't pretend that he totally ignored the subject altogether.

BTW - Why the hell don't you watch the damned speech?

happy jack wrote:

I didn't say he ignored the subject. I said that his explanation was unsatisfactory.
Why are you so adamant that I 'watch' the speech?
Do the words take on new meaning when they are vocalized rather than printed?

Like I said, that's the only explanation that you're going to get. So if that's not sufficient for you, then I guess you've already made your "decision," haven't you?

I really shouldn't have to tell anyone why it's important to watch a major address by the President of the United States. But, like I said, perhaps it's just me. I've watched every major address by every POTUS since I was a child, and it's never mattered if I approved of the President or not. I guess I thought that everyone else did the same thing.

A transcript is great, but IMHO, it's too sterile, by itself. There are points of emphasis and nuance in speech that you simply can't get from the written word.

Do you even bother to watch Presidential debates? Or do you just skim the transcripts?

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

So which side of the fence are you on?

I don't know yet, Heretic.

Yeah, I didn't think they were as similar as you claimed, either.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion is bound and determined to make me watch Obama's speech at gunpoint, as if that will somehow make a difference in the Libyan situation.

Yeah. Well I never said that it would make a "difference in the Libyan situation." What I think is weird is posting your opinion on a speech without watching it first.

Scorpion wrote:

I won't hedge on my answer to that question. I am totally opposed to a US invasion of Libya.

happy jack wrote:

Considering that, in your eyes, our vital national interests are such that the attack on Libya is justified, are those interests sufficiently vital to warrant an invasion, should that become necessary, or will you continue to stand by your above statement regardless of how bad things may get?

The no fly zone was put into place in order to stop Gadaffi from bombing his own people, so I'm
just going to ignore the first part of your question, because I don't recall discussing the military intervention in Libya in terms of "vital national interests."

I can't imagine a scenario that would warrant an invasion by the US. Exactly what do you mean by "regardless of how bad things get?" If you could clarify, then perhaps I can answer your question.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I don't recall discussing the military intervention in Libya in terms of "vital national interests."

What were we discussing in the last half-dozen or so posts?

We were discussing the President's speech and his justifications for intervention. Nowhere in the speech did the President cite "vital national interests."

I know that I certainly haven't mentioned "vital national interests."

happy jack wrote:

And what the hell is "weird" about me commenting on a speech that I read, but didn't watch?
The words remain the same, do they not?

Yeah. Well you might have a point if you didn't keep misquoting and mischaracterizing his speech.

The fact of the matter is that you don't seem to have a very good grasp of what he actually said.

Perhaps if you'd seen the speech and had some kind of grasp of the tone and the order of it, it might have aided you in your comprehension of the transcript.