Three Difficult Questions for the White House About Libya
EmailCoalition forces have made "a lot of progress in removing Gadhafi's air defense and air assets," a senior White House official told ABC News Monday morning. "We essentially have a no-fly zone."
The official said "our read from people on the ground is that there's been from pullback from Benghazi" by Gadhafi's forces.
The White House remains skeptical of Gadhafi's continued claim he wants a cease-fire given continued Libyan government action against rebel strongholds such as Misurata.
President Obama continues to believe that command and control of the operation will be handed over to an international coalition within days, the official said.
ABC News also asked the official three questions about the nature of this military engagement for which we had yet to hear answers:
1) Why Attack Libya But Not Other Places Where the Government Is Attacking Its Population — Such as Bahrain?
"The scope of the violence," the official said. "We've condemned the violence in Bahrain and we don't think it's part of any solution to the demonstrations there. But in Libya you have Gadhafi carrying out a military campaign against his own people.There was simply a much greater risk of mass killings in places like Benghazi" than in Bahrain.
The US also has a major naval base in Bahrain.
2) Why Not Seek Congressional Authorization Before Beginning This War?
The senior White House official said that the White House consulted with Congress before any military action began, and will continue to do so. Administration officials for weeks kept members of Congress informed as to how events were developing. "We take the consultative role very seriously," the official said.
That said, the official argued, this is a military operation that will be "short in duration and scope, so we believe we have the authority to carry it out."
On a practical level, the official said, this was "a fast moving event that took place when Congress was not in session. In order to stop an imminent humanitarian catastophe we had to move very fast — and we still convened a bipartisan congressional meeting."
3) What Does the Endgame Look Like — Can Gadhafi Stay In Power?
The short answer is yes. While regime change in Libya is the policy of the U.S., Gadhafi's removal is not the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn.
The goal is to stop the attacks on civilians and have European and Arab countries enforce a no-fly zone (with the U.S. moving back to a support role.) The U.S. will continue to squeeze Gadhafi using diplomatic means — travel bans, asset freezes, sanctions.
"There are consequences to removing him militarily," the official said. "It's a far more complicated piece of business and for the military a far more expansive and expensive mission."
The U.S. wants to make sure the uprising against Gadhafi remains indigenous; if the U.S. were to remove Gadhafi with military means, "there would be far more ownership of the government that follows."
-Jake Tapper
Biden Reflects on Grief, Suicidal Thoughts 
Is Congress Sounding Dumber?
Its all about oil and relection. Deaths seems not to matter.
Why not Bahrain, President Obama? do they not cry out for ” Democracy” What are you hiding?
Posted by: The media snitch | March 21, 2011, 9:30 am 9:30 am
“The short answer is yes.”
Do we have an actual strategy or plan in place for any of this? It’s looking like fly by the seat of our pants while Obama does the samba in Rio…
Posted by: Bo, PWD | March 21, 2011, 9:46 am 9:46 am
No budget,big deficit,CBO says NO to his policies, oil prices skyrocket, no jobs, Japan burns, war in Libya and the President/family/friends goes on vacation with lots of sight seeing. I have noticed when something comes up he doesn’t want to (or doesn’t know how to) deal with he runs away. Worst President we have ever had but he talks pretty and looks pretty.
Posted by: Freedom | March 21, 2011, 9:57 am 9:57 am
“The senior White House official said that the White House consulted with Congress before any military action began,”
News flash! Nancy Pelosi is NOT the entire Congress. And she has left the country also.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | March 21, 2011, 10:15 am 10:15 am
Why not ask the President what he thinks about his quote during the campaign, when asked by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe:
Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
OBAMA: The President does not have 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.
Posted by: Steve | March 21, 2011, 10:18 am 10:18 am
Jeez, Monday morning and out comes the rats who know nothing,donoting but wait to throw rocks at the President no matter what the subject is…First the republicans say they were’nt “consulted”, out and out LIE. Oh, Wait a minute, they ask their “permission” I would think John McCain would be more in tune about being “trigger happy” and the president giving the UN and the “Arab League” time to make up their minds while the “Colnel” was killing his own people..Now that “our President has dropped the hammer” on Quadafi, He is being too “harsh”. AS for being in Brazil when things happened on sunday thats where he was supposed to be..Many previous Presidents were out of the country when things happened and if memory serves me right, they only cut short their “previous planned trips” when their people back home could’nt think for them selves. Don’t blame the President because other countries and the UN was trying to figure if they wanted middle easterners to mad at them first.
Posted by: Eddie | March 21, 2011, 10:21 am 10:21 am
Now lets see how long it is going our other coaltion partners jump in and do their part now that Quadafi has been softened up and their few planes can’t get shot down by BB guns.
Posted by: Eddie | March 21, 2011, 10:27 am 10:27 am
Who would have thought we’d have 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq in March, 2011?
“In October 2007, Obama proclaimed, ‘I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.’ Speaking of Iraq in February 2008, candidate Barack Obama said, ‘I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.’ The following month, under fire from Hillary Clinton, he reiterated, ‘I was opposed to this war in 2002….I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.’”
And oh, yeah: Gitmo is still going strong.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | March 21, 2011, 10:46 am 10:46 am
Tell me what a war for oil looks like.
This is what a war for oil looks like.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | March 21, 2011, 11:19 am 11:19 am
The Obama’s are on their way to Chile. There will be more protesters there to greet them, as there was in Brazil. And the media will not cover it.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | March 21, 2011, 11:29 am 11:29 am
Can we ask another question to the President:
4) How could you have been opposed to the Iraq war and justify this one?
Posted by: J.R. | March 21, 2011, 11:39 am 11:39 am
Don’t fault Obama if you didn’t fault Bush….Same situation, civilians dying at the hands of a ruthless dictator…The only disagreement PV finds is that he relied on a UN resolution to set American response/policy….What will happen in a situation where Time is of the Essence…Go on VACA and let his Secretary of State handle it???
Posted by: Parallex View | March 21, 2011, 11:40 am 11:40 am
Any word on the women and children that were forming a human shield around Qadhafi’s compound?
Posted by: Bo, PWD | March 21, 2011, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
“4) How could you have been opposed to the Iraq war and justify this one?”
Present.
Posted by: MIA | March 21, 2011, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm
“They told me if I voted for John McCain, we’d be bombing Arab countries and talking about reinstating the draft. And, they were right!”
~ Glenn Reynolds
Posted by: Bo, PWD | March 21, 2011, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
-Don’t fault Obama if you didn’t fault Bush-
What else can one do but blame some other guy for something you did
Posted by: Notme | March 21, 2011, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
I understand that ….
Barry has fired more cruise missiles than any nobel peace prize winner.
Barry is currently second in total Arabs killed by a nobel peace prize winner.
Barry is currently third in total Muslims killed by a nobel peace prize winner.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | March 21, 2011, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm
On a practical level, the official said, this was “a fast moving event that took place when Congress was not in session. In order to stop an imminent humanitarian catastophe we had to move very fast — and we still convened a bipartisan congressional meeting.”
This is a practical explanation? Fast moving event? Are we supposed to give this spokesperson the benefit of the doubt when he is so clearly blowing smoke?
These people are distorting the truth at best, lying to our faces at worst. What is obvious is that they think they can get away with it.
When did the President gave the order to strike Libya?
Who is in charge of US operations, the commander in chief?
Why did the President leave the US when military activity was imminent, and these options ‘were being discussed’ with congress?
What the heck is going on here, has the executive branch gone insane?
Posted by: Mike, CO | March 21, 2011, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
“After studying the constitutional language governing the use of military force and the debates that the Framers had on the issue, Joe Biden determined that the Founding Fathers had vested the power to authorize even the limited use of military force in the Congress not the president—unless it was necessary for the president to act swiftly to repel an attack on the United States or to rescue U.S. citizens.
“Biden derided the opposite position—that the president could use military force without congressional authorization—as a ‘monarchist’ view of presidential power. That was in 1998, however, when Biden was in the Senate.”
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | March 21, 2011, 12:57 pm 12:57 pm
Who is in charge of US operations, the commander in chief?
Why did the President leave the US when military activity was imminent, and these options ‘were being discussed’ with congress?
What the heck is going on here, has the executive branch gone insane?
Posted by: Mike, CO
________________________________________
#1 He is now known as the “spectator in chief”
#2 He left because he was exhausted from filling out those basketball brackets
#3 kinda obvious huh
OBAMA__________VS____________AMERICA
Posted by: Yep I said that | March 21, 2011, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm
1) Why Attack Libya But Not Other Places Where the Government Is Attacking Its Population — Such as Bahrain? What about Iran, where Obama said he didn’t want to “meddle”?
Posted by: pauldia | March 21, 2011, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm
It seems to me THE questions should be:
Who are the rebels? Who is leading them? How are they being financed and equipped? Do they have connections to Al Qaeda? What happens if Ghadafi is taken out and an extreme form of Islam is put in place? Why are we risking harm to our own brave soldiers if the rebels happen to be anti-American extremists who don’t want our help? How is this going to affect our relationship with Russia, China, Germany, etc.? What does ‘victory’ mean? How much is this going to cost?
These questions (and many more) were being posed to the Bush administration during his time in office and even up to this day (concerning Iraq). It’s only reasonable that they should be asked in this situation as well.
Posted by: Shoe | March 21, 2011, 3:14 pm 3:14 pm
Didn’t it used to be bad for the United States to intervene in a civil war?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | March 21, 2011, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm
According to Dave Gergen , Obama was sort of arm-twisted by three women, namely, Hilary, Susan Rice and Samentha Power to agree to join force with the former colonial powers in Africa, i.e. France and Britain to enter the war with Gadhafi, against the dream of his late father Barrak Hussaain Obama Sr , who was an anti-colonial politician back in Kenya.
Posted by: austin | March 21, 2011, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
A “WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL” !!!
The White House wants to remain anonymously off-the-record on a Joint Military Action. Does the Washington press corps have no respect for their readers/viewers? Let’s have some transparency from the administration and the media. There is absolutely no reason that this conversation should not have been on-the-record by a named official.
Posted by: Dave in colorado | March 21, 2011, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
The Protesters in Bahrain have been peaceful from the beginning. These are the People that need the intervention of the Coalition Forces more.
The People in Benghazi took up arms against Gadhafi. I wonder what the world expected Gadhafi to do? Sit like a lame duck until the Rebels enter Tripoli and give him Samuel Doe’s treament?
When has it become a crime for someone to defend himself against assailants.
If the Libyan Government declares a cease fire, should they look the other way and not repel the advancement of the Rebels?
If the intention of the Coalition Forces is to protect Civilians, why bomb Gadhafi’s Compound?
Why is it impossible for the Coalition forces to advise the Rebel to observe a cease fire too.
The US supported the Lebanese revolution and got rewarded with Hezbollah.
The US supported Afghanistan’s uprising against Russia during the cold war and got rewarded with the Talibans and Osama bin Laden.
The US backed Iraq in their 1980 war with Iran and the got rewarded with Saddam Hussain and Ahmadinejad.
We are supporting Rebels that have taken up arms against their Government -no matter how illegitimate that Government may be, the Rebels have committed high Treason.
So if the Rebels with the backing of the Coalition Forces are able to topple Gadhafi, what next?
We need to look before we jump into a war that is not our business in the first place. Diplomatic solutions should have been employed and carried through before the resort to arial bombardment, which will eventually result into the death of more Civilians.
As at the last count, the US intervention in Iraq has led to the death of almost 40,000 iraqi Civilians.
Posted by: Dare Taiwio | March 22, 2011, 7:44 am 7:44 am
Posted by: Dare Taiwio | Mar 22, 2011 7:44:01 AM
The so called pro-democracy uprising is basically a religious struggle. In Bahrain, the protesters are the majority shiites, who want to topple the ruling class who are sonnies. In Cairo, the protesters are the long suppressed muslim brotherhood, who want to oust its suppressor and make Egypt an Islam dominated nation.
Posted by: austin | March 22, 2011, 11:09 am 11:09 am