FACT CHECK: How President Obama's Libya speech claims fit the facts [They don't]

AP ^ | March 20 2011 | WOODWARD and LARDNER

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

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.

Since the 'rebels' have suddenly turned into a somewhat competent force overnight and are supposedly making all of these gains under the protection of American air power, I have no doubt that we have CIA and/or ex-SpecOP "contractors" in Libya directing their operations.

Note that while the Obama Administration can probably correctly insist that there are no American "troops on the ground," the feckless media has never answered the next obvious question about "non-military" American personnel who might be involved there. Someone is illuminating Libyan armor for the flyboys and it ain't the 'rebels'.

Speaking of which...

Al Qaeda's Foreign Fighters in Iraq (2007 U.S. Military Academy Report)

MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden' (UK pays Al Qaeda in Libya, 1996)

Libyan Islamists 'join al-Qaeda' (November 2007)

Gaddafi regime fed names of jihadists to the CIA and to Britain

Libya frees 214 Islamists (March 23, 2010)

Libya frees 37 Islamist prisoners (September 1, 2010)

Libya frees 12 more political prisoners (February 4, 2011)

Libya Islamists 'seize arms, take hostages' (February 20, 2011)

Al Qaeda sets up 'Islamic emirate' (February 24, 2011)

Al-Qaeda commander calls for overthrow of Gaddafi and introduction of Sharia Law (March 14, 2011)

Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side

Saving the Libyan Islamists

Libyan rebels: “Now is the time of Jihad!”

Rebel Commander in Libya Fought Against U.S. in Afghanistan

[Londo Molari]

“The region has been “destabilized” since before Obama was born.”

Well, it is close to where he was born — Kenya!

[palmer]

from "fact check": 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.

Translation: we have ensured stalemate which will result in more suffering than Libya had under Gadaffi. Either let Gadaffi run it, or have someone else run it after removing him. Half way measures are worse than useless.

[GlockThe Vote]

I don’t even listen anymore. Why? Its all mamby pamby nonsense he reads off a teleprompter in almost a robotic like tone.

Its almost like the gps voice at this point. It all sounds the same regardless of the topic.

[Humble Servant]

” Dude is an idiot savant.
Minus the savant. “

Plus moron fool jackass.

[Humble Servant]

Speaking of making things up, how about making the camel into the Dem logo, instead of the donkey? Or morphing them into a “camackass”?

[maine-iac7]

OOPS.

NATO comes out this morning and say - “ah, well...no, ah, we're not going to take over just yet.”

I wonder if, as more information surfaces about who the rebels really may be, there are countries who signed into this debacle who might be thinking: “Do we want to be caught taking out a secular regime by supporting and handing a whole country over to Al Qaeda?

How in the H-E-double L do you run a successful military action when the people leading it are in such disarray right out of the gate??

[Makana]

From ABC article - “have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft”. These weapons are normally employed in conjunction with Fire-Control personnel on the ground, directing fire.

[newzjunkey]

The press should be enjoying this.

First it's Gaddafi must go. Then maybe he can stay. No he has to go, there's an imminent humanitarian threat. Let's wait 31 days. Vital national interest. Logistical support only! No support for rebels! We can't wait one more day to talk to Congress. Bomb now! Support for rebels. Gaddafi can stay. No vital national interest. NATO? Not yet. NATO? Try again Wed.

I found it telling that a week ago Obama was promising we would not support the rebels, only protect civilians. But, last night, he said we will support the rebels!

We we started we were just doing a limited logistical support role for the UK/French imposed no-fly zone. That narrow mission was abandoned in a day when we sent tomahawks and B-2's. There's no question there's been mission creep regarding Libya. We're frogs in a boiling pot.

Transfer of control NATO is just a PR move since, at the highest levels, we are NATO. I don't think we know the real reason for this mission. Europe is maybe worried about oil access (we said the rebels can sell it). Obama has his eye on 2012, sure. But there must be another reason. This administration is either supremely crafty or alarmingly inept.

[Ro_Thunder]

What about the blood bath going on in Mexico? Why are we not doing more to secure the border, find and kill the narco-terrorists?