March 29, 2011

Fact Checking Obama's Claim About It Taking One Year To Provide Air Cover In the Bosnian War
— Ace

Obama made this claim in order to rebut critics who say he dithered indecisively:

To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.

That is misleading to the point of being a lie. He is trying to claim that he acted more promptly, assembled a military coalition more swiftly.

In fact, he did not. He refers to "air power" -- the establishment of a shoot-down no-fly zone created by UN Resolution 816 on March 31, 1993. A previous UN Resolution, which banned military flights in Bosnia, as set forth in Resolution 718, passed on October 9, 1992. But this resolution, while purporting to establish a ban, did not authorize the undertaking of any actual action to enforce that ban -- what it seemed to do was authorize "monitoring" and the recording of violations. By the time the second, shoot-down authorizing resolution was passed, the Bosnian War had been going on for a while.

Is Obama telling the truth, then?

No. Because while air power is usually the first sort of power to be injected into a theater, with ground troops coming later (if at all), in Bosnia, air power was the last to enter.

By the time Resolution 816 authorized NATO shoot-downs of aircraft violating the ban on flights, there had been boots-on-the-ground peacekeepers in the region for over a year.

Obama's attempt to draw a contrast with the previous alleged tardiness of world response in Bosnia is dishonest. A coalition of countries was assembled to provide the thorniest sort of protection possible, boots-on-the-ground separation of hostile forces:

The UNPROFOR was composed of nearly 39,000 personnel, 320 of whom were killed on duty. It was composed of troops from Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany , Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.

"Air power" did indeed come later, but ground power had already been organized to attempt to protect civilians and keep opposed forces separated, the same type of civilian-sparing humanitarian mission Obama hopes to achieve with the airstrikes. Air power was added later in Bosnia partly as an expansion of the old ground-based humanitarian effort to the skies but also partly in an effort to end the war by destroying the combatants' ability to make war.

It is simply not true, as Obama implied, that it took a year for the international community to respond in Bosnia. They had responded far more quickly than that. It took them a year only to decide to add air power -- a decision that was probably slowed by the fact that there tens of thousands of foreign peacekeepers already on the ground who would be natural magnets for retaliation when shoot-downs and airstrikes began. In other words, we already had almost 40,000 would-be hostages in the region.

Notice the dainty preciseness of his deception -- he speaks only about the introduction of "air power," and it's technically true that shoot-downs did not begin until a year later. He conveniently fails to mention, however, that the much more dangerous commitment of tens of thousands of peacekeepers (acting under extraordinarily restrictive ROE's) were already in place by then, and had been for over a year.

By the way, the AP's "Fact Check" missed this one.

Corrected: I originally wrote it was more than a year before the first UN ban on flights and the second, authorizing shoot-downs. In fact, I got very simple math screwed up; it was in fact less than half a year. I have rewritten that passage to elide the error.

In fact, Obama seems to be getting the "more than a year" thing from the date of the resolution authorizing boots-on-the-ground peacekeepers:

UNPROFOR was created by UN Security Council Resolution 743 on 21 February 1992.

Feb 1992 to March/April 1993 = "more than a year."

But of course he can't mention that date-- that would scotch his whole deception. If he's being precise about matters, he'd have to say "It was more than a full year before air power was authorized in Bosnia, after a full year of boots-on-the-ground peacekeepers were in place, who'd been organized rather swiftly after the outbreak of war."

Sort of undercuts his whole "I acted super-fast" comparison.

Posted by: Ace at 09:26 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 842 words, total size 6 kb.

1

LOOK- we said it, MSNBC reported it, and that makes it holy writ.

Jeez!

Posted by: White House Office Of Communications at March 29, 2011 09:29 AM (cUNcx)

2 Of course it's not true. I'm surprised AP fact checked. It always has to be about Obama. "See I can do everything better." Me, me, me, I, I, I....

Posted by: Donna at March 29, 2011 09:29 AM (bdE9c)

3 So the jugeared fuck is a liar?  The deuce you say!!

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2011 09:30 AM (Jk7tF)

4 The spammers are hilarious and ironic today.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 29, 2011 09:32 AM (UOM48)

5 To say Obama lies would be to understate the fact beyond words.

Posted by: tangonine at March 29, 2011 09:33 AM (x3YFz)

6

Who comes up with this crap? Is it still the beer pong team?

i.e., that gaggle of callow fuzz-nutted little weasels who cut their teeth on inventing excuses for why their homework was late.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at March 29, 2011 09:33 AM (w41GQ)

7 Facts? How do they fucking work?

Posted by: Bosk at March 29, 2011 09:33 AM (pUO5u)

8 *rolls eyes* 

I'm getting talking points from the White House on my Blackberry now.  Valerie Jarrett said you wingers are lying liars who lie.

So there.

*rolls eyes*

Posted by: Mika Blowsinski at March 29, 2011 09:34 AM (UOM48)

9 http://tinyurl.com/34xz6l

Wrote a song about him. Goes like this...


Posted by: Henry Garfield aka Henry Rollins at March 29, 2011 09:35 AM (HpT9p)

10 Even if this were totally honest, it would still be a lame excuse:  "Sure, I'm late, but look, Clinton was even later."

Posted by: sandy burger at March 29, 2011 09:35 AM (MT+0i)

11 Hey, we know that Professor Sissypants lied, but who else is listening?  Few watched that speech anyhow, and many of those that tuned in were tuned out soon after the opening sentences. 

It's what he says now in his network one-on-ones with the puffball throwers like Brianna Willams that will help cement the meme into the minds of the electorate.

The meme being that he is a serious commander in chief, concerned with the welfare of the people of the world.  That shit sells in Madison, WI, and it will sell in Charleston, SC, as well.  Bet on it.

This is all part of WTF 2012, don'tcha know?

Posted by: High Dollar Moron at March 29, 2011 09:35 AM (4sQwu)

12 Posted by: Mika Blowsinski

Take your top off.

Posted by: Waterhouse at March 29, 2011 09:36 AM (pbCk0)

13 When your ignorant, lying comes easy

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 29, 2011 09:37 AM (0GFWk)

14 I hate that fuckwit in the WH with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns.

Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at March 29, 2011 09:38 AM (BXryi)

15 That hash (uFokq) is a regular.

A real spammer would have gotten the link in the username right.  It's a moron, all right.

Posted by: sandy burger at March 29, 2011 09:38 AM (MT+0i)

16 I trust the sycophantic cum-guzzlers in the media will not dare ask this lying whoreson why he didn't intervene when Iran was brutalizing its citizens, if that's the standard.

Posted by: Waterhouse at March 29, 2011 09:39 AM (pbCk0)

17 Heh!  I'm waiting for a red-faced, finger shaking, pissed off Bill Clinton to come out and start going monkey daddy on Teh Won.  This "boy who would have been getting us all coffee a few years ago" has basically anhilated Clinton's "legacy" (welfare reform, "budget surplus", "First Black President", etc., etc.) 

Posted by: runningrn at March 29, 2011 09:39 AM (ihSHD)

18 I hate that fuckwit in the WH with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns. Posted by: Dumb_Blonde at March 29, 2011 02:38 PM (BXryi) I hate him more

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 29, 2011 09:40 AM (0GFWk)

19 Is anyone else listening to Rush cause right now what he is saying is making sense but scaring the heck out of me.


Posted by: curious at March 29, 2011 09:40 AM (k1rwm)

20

Ace - your references still do not explain the "over one year" part.  I think you meant to reference UN Security Council Resolution 743, which was adopted on February 21, 1992 - not Resolution 718.

http://tinyurl.com/48spzx9

Posted by: connertown at March 29, 2011 09:41 AM (+q3dR)

21 Donny Deutsch (I know) on MSDNC (I know) said this morning that Barry's handling of Libya guarantees him another four years.  I threw up in my mouth and turned on the radio.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 29, 2011 09:41 AM (UOM48)

Posted by: davidt at March 29, 2011 09:41 AM (JDnWx)

23 Rush has been awesome today.  He said that the Obama Doctrine can be boiled down to 3 words:  "2012 Or Bust!"  If Gaddafi leaves, the media will be orgasmic over Obama being a strong, decisive leader.  Because of course, he will get all the credit.  He will be lauded to be greater than FDR by the MFM--Rush's prediction.  If things don't go well, and Gaddafi stays, then the press will blame GWB.

Posted by: runningrn at March 29, 2011 09:42 AM (ihSHD)

24 So he is essentially saying that this is a way to give al k da a nation state with oil so they can make money and k daffy has to go cause he would be an impediment.   And this is what rush is calling the obama doctrine which has to "be done by 2012".   hmmm does that mean they buy into the twelfth imam storyline? 

I can't be hearing this right.  Someone correct me, this has to be all wrong.

Posted by: disgusted at March 29, 2011 09:42 AM (k1rwm)

25 Link fail, davidt.

Posted by: joncelli at March 29, 2011 09:42 AM (RD7QR)

26 If things don't go well, and Gaddafi stays, then the press will blame GWB.  

Oh, hell.  They're going to continue carrying Barry's water and blaming Booosh until they're getting their heads sawed off by their new Muslim overlords. 


Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 29, 2011 09:44 AM (UOM48)

27 >>>Ace - your references still do not explain the "over one year" part. I think you meant to reference UN Security Council Resolution 743, which was adopted on February 21, 1992 - not Resolution 718. yes, thank you, I just realized that, independently, myself, and inserted a correction.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2011 09:44 AM (nj1bB)

Posted by: davidt at March 29, 2011 09:44 AM (JDnWx)

29 Why do I get the feeling Billy Jeff is going to have something to say about this.  I don't think he takes kindly to his legacy being impuged by a guy who should be getting him and Hillary coffee.

Posted by: WishRich at March 29, 2011 09:45 AM (hdpay)

30 wait, wasn't Afghanistan a nation state with oil that everyone's fought?  The russians went down in a blaze and we aren't doing that much better.   So if they got libya then would all the Afghanistan fighting have been for naught.

i have to be misunderstanding rush, cause i'm nauseous.

Posted by: disgusted at March 29, 2011 09:46 AM (k1rwm)

31 We hear Slobodan Milocevek used to play hockey with Track Palin.

Posted by: Rolling Stone at March 29, 2011 09:46 AM (nj1bB)

32 Facts are for peasants, and yes you are revolting.

Posted by: Your Betters at March 29, 2011 09:46 AM (1fB+3)

33 It's been over two years and he has failed to pull his head out of his ass

Posted by: Jackhole at March 29, 2011 09:47 AM (+qHxi)

34 In fact, Obama seems to be getting the "more than a year" thing from the date of the resolution authorizing boots-on-the-ground peacekeepers:

So even with his all his careful parsing and Ivy-League-trained wordsmithing, the delicate genius still can't avoid being a fucking liar?

Posted by: Waterhouse at March 29, 2011 09:47 AM (pbCk0)

35 Well, he's right in the sense that it did take a VERY long time to do anything EFFECTIVE in Bosnia; we have the remarkable case of Srebrenica right up there with Mogadishu as the showpiece examples of weapons-grade UN fecklessness.   UNPROFOR was basically an international coalition of hostages for Milosevic.

If our State and Defense establishments learned nothing else from Somalia and Bosnia than that you cannot impose peace upon parties intent upon war unless you're able and willing to shoot first, we'll call it a valid historical lesson.


Posted by: JEM at March 29, 2011 09:47 AM (o+SC1)

36 >>>UNPROFOR was basically an international coalition of hostages for Milosevic. Sure, of course, but his real claim is that it took them much longer to act militarily (however futilely). But rather than speak of acting militarily, he deliberately only refers to "air power," which, crazily, was only inserted into the effort after the introduction of infantry, a bizarre sort of inversion of usual practice. Most people assume air power first, then, if at all, ground troops, so to most people, 'air power" means "first military action." Not in this case, though.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2011 09:50 AM (nj1bB)

37 So Obama lies. Did anyone alert the media?

Posted by: kansas at March 29, 2011 09:51 AM (mka2b)

38 I didn't need Rush to figure that out. The only things that the this jackass has ever done in his entire life is run for office and go on vacation. Wash, rinse, repeat. In his defense, however, this isn't much different than any of the rest of the assholes in DC. The Dear Reader is just blatantly obvious about it, aside from his staff and the media (but I repeat myself) thinking that they are being clever and fooling us into thinking that he actual accomplishes things. The sad part is that half the country, and not just Democrats, actually go along with the BS and we end up with polls that show a 20%+ disparity between the empty suit's personal and policy approval ratings and a even split (44/44) on his handling of Libya.

Posted by: Damiano at March 29, 2011 09:51 AM (3nrx7)

39 You cannot compare wars to justify your actions. They need to stand on their own.

Posted by: polynikes at March 29, 2011 09:52 AM (iRWGZ)

40 Meh, I don't think anyone really cares about Barry's attempt to say he's more better than Clinton or Bush. That act is wearing thin, even amongst his supporters. Bottom line is Barry went against everything he said he would do when he was a senator and when he was running for president. He acted without Congressional approval and he is on the hook for what happens in Libya all by his lonesome. And when things get dicey, like say for example when we "win" and Qaddafi is gone and there is nobody or no institutions even remotely ready to step in, then what? The UN? France? Italy. Oh, ok. Barry's got his own little war now and it's going to hang around his neck for the remainder of his (hopefully) short term.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 29, 2011 09:52 AM (TMB3S)

41 Obama and facts are like oil and water

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 29, 2011 09:52 AM (1Jaio)

42 What's new? Obama opens his mouth and a lie spews forth. He has been doing that since 2007.

Posted by: Vic at March 29, 2011 09:53 AM (M9Ie6)

43 Sock monkeys suck

Posted by: Jackhole at March 29, 2011 09:53 AM (+qHxi)

44 This is all part of WTF 2012, don'tcha know?

Posted by: High Dollar Moron at March 29, 2011 02:35 PM (4sQwu)

By mid to late 2012, the Libyan adventure will be declared an unparalled success for the nuanced O team (no matter what the actual results are on the ground or what might evolve in the future there). 

We will never get an accounting of the costs in either lives or dollars.

We will never know how the Frogs and Limeys were involved in the decisions to involve US forces.

The scum sucking diplomats in the UN will exert even more influence over any potential US actions anywhere in the world. 

And the RINOs will give O top cover.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 29, 2011 09:54 AM (DCpHZ)

45

I still don't know why the hell we are blowing stuff up in Libya. Obama's stated reason would have us bombing half a dozen countries if implemented everywhere dictators kill their citizens. He should have been all for the War in Iraq if his stated reason for striking Libya is true.

Why is he doing this? A reelection ploy? Risky. I feel like Bob Dylan's Mr. Jones. There's something going on here but I don't know what it is...  

Posted by: Meremortal at March 29, 2011 09:54 AM (DffuX)

46 Could we at least drop a few on Iran while were shopping wars in the Middle East?  I've been waiting for that since 1979.   Maybe another mysterious malfunctioning cruise missle like in the Balkans.  

Posted by: Beagle at March 29, 2011 09:54 AM (sOtz/)

47 Whoever is the repub nominee would be wise to have a campaign of "you can't trust him".


and ot: there is a video at HA under the "its come to this" that just pisses me off to no end.  Govt chick there telling a guy he doesn't have the right to speak.  Govt fascism in full.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 29, 2011 09:55 AM (Z1jiu)

48 And to top it off I am so freaken tired hearing we help avert a massacre? What massacre? They just make shit up

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 29, 2011 09:56 AM (0GFWk)

49 Obama's speech writer was probably entering puberty and just discovering his "special purpose" when Bosnia was going on.

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 29, 2011 09:57 AM (XBM1t)

50 O/t:  so i was perusing the conspiracy blog and I thought this was the only interesting thing I saw there, but, can't get tinyurl to make it into a link for me so have to post it outright:  http: //www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011 /march/cryptanalysis_032911/cryptanalysis_032911

Posted by: disgusted at March 29, 2011 09:57 AM (k1rwm)

51

They lie even when the truth would serve as well.

Understand that, and you understand them.

Posted by: toby928 at March 29, 2011 09:58 AM (GTbGH)

52 The Obama Administration's narrative is almost as convincing as the Taliban's.  Is there some deeper Libyan connection we don't know about?  Same PR/Marketing  firm?

Posted by: Fritz at March 29, 2011 09:58 AM (FaFnu)

53 They lie even when the truth would serve as well. Understand that, and you understand them. Posted by: toby928™ at March 29, 2011 02:58 PM (GTbGH) They lie because, like all good fellow travelers, the ends justify the means

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 29, 2011 09:58 AM (0GFWk)

Posted by: disgusted at March 29, 2011 09:59 AM (k1rwm)

55

Obama's Libya Policy, in 3 Sentences (Jim Geraghty)

"Obama’s speech included these three sentences, and it is revealing that no one within the White House found them contradictory:

'I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.'

'Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.'

'We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power.'

He must step down. We are working to drive him from power. But we are not pursuing regime change.

Present!"

link

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 29, 2011 10:01 AM (UO6+e)

56 And to top it off I am so freaken tired hearing we help avert a massacre? What massacre? They just make shit up

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 29, 2011 02:56 PM (0GFWk) Ghadaffi was quoted threatening to conduct a massacre.  Now it's become "Obama saved a quarter million people" I heard from Beckel.   Of course a high intensity guerilla war stalemate should kill quite a few people for the next few months years who knows?

Posted by: Beagle at March 29, 2011 10:01 AM (sOtz/)

57 Facts? How do they fucking work?

Posted by: Bosk at March 29, 2011 02:33 PM (pUO5u)

They are like gravity, always trying to keep the black man down.

Posted by: robtr at March 29, 2011 10:01 AM (MtwBb)

58 It certainly helped that the dems lost the house in the last election as in stopping more socialist laws coming into the world, but in a second term prez odictator will do more of the go around congress plan and just do it with executive power.  4 more years of that and we will be way down the road to serfdom.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 29, 2011 10:02 AM (Z1jiu)

59 Remember, it's not a lie if you believe it is true

Posted by: George Castanza at March 29, 2011 10:03 AM (pdRb1)

60 They lie even when the truth would serve as well.

Understand that, and you understand them.
Posted by: toby928™ at March 29, 2011 02:58 PM (GTbGH)

They lie because in their minds, like all good fellow travelers, the ends justify the means

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 29, 2011 02:58 PM (0GFWk)

FIFY

What toby928 says is true.  And you have to cut these destructive people out of your life.

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 29, 2011 10:04 AM (XBM1t)

61 It's really sad that Obama has to go out and bad mouth Bill Clinton to make himself look good.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at March 29, 2011 10:04 AM (tvs2p)

62 Stuff like this makes people start to think they aren't being told the truth and then they start looking at things differently like this dinner tonight in Harlem.  Makes you wonder if this is a way to meet with certain folks so that the certain folks don't appear on the WH visitor's log.  Aren't the bros in NY anyway?

Posted by: ?????????????????????? at March 29, 2011 10:05 AM (k1rwm)

63

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, Charles Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, began to instruct fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Tom Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John Boehner of Ohio, the Speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said, “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.

Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

It's a darn good thing that our deficits aren't EXTREME.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at March 29, 2011 10:06 AM (tvs2p)

64 Obama is finally growing into the office and becoming the commander-in-chief I always knew he could be. He's sexy, smart and has facts coming out of his ass! We both should be beloved by the media.

Posted by: John McCain at March 29, 2011 10:06 AM (1fB+3)

65 It's really sad that Obama has to go out and bad mouth Bill Clinton to make himself look good.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at March 29, 2011 03:04 PM (tvs2p)

Especially when Shillary is carrying water for the O.  But there's a lot of room yet under the bus.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 29, 2011 10:06 AM (DCpHZ)

66 Well, he's right in the sense that it did take a VERY long time to do anything EFFECTIVE in Bosnia; we have the remarkable case of Srebrenica right up there with Mogadishu as the showpiece examples of weapons-grade UN fecklessness.   UNPROFOR was basically an international coalition of hostages for Milosevic.

Posted by: JEM at March 29, 2011 02:47 PM (o+SC1)

The UN fucks did a great job of rounding up the Bosnians into one place so the Serbs could blast the Allah out of them and be more efficient.  Speaking of the Serbs, help a moron out:  Why does the MFM hate them?

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2011 10:07 AM (Jk7tF)

67 It's really sad that Obama has to go out and bad mouth Bill Clinton to make himself look good.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at March 29, 2011 03:04 PM (tvs2p)

I think it's great.  Slick is trash who is barely less complicit than Obomber in the shit situation we find ourselves in.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2011 10:10 AM (Jk7tF)

68 @39 - ace, there's no question that Obama's trying to look for some way to frame this that makes both of his faces look good - the decisive executive and the anti-war darling.

And in making his bogus claims re Bosnia what he's really doing is trying carefully to hop over the minefield of the Bush years and stand himself up next to Clinton.

"This was the right model, but I did it better".

Well, given how badly we stumbled and shambled in our Clinton-era military interventions (does the name 'Les Aspin' ring a bell?) that's a pretty damn low bar to set for yourself.   

Posted by: JEM at March 29, 2011 10:11 AM (o+SC1)

69

Posted by: Downscaled Upscale at March 29, 2011 03:01 PM (IhHdM)

Favreau, that's the guy.  Dumbass.  [said in a Red Forman voiceover]

Posted by: Count de Monet at March 29, 2011 10:11 AM (XBM1t)

70 He saved or created 100 gazillion people from being masacred.

Posted by: Damiano at March 29, 2011 10:13 AM (3nrx7)

71

The reality is that air power can only do so much to avert house-to-house brutality.  You can bomb the house to, ah, save the people inside.  But it's not advisable.  So eventually it could come down to the mission and escalation or mass slaughter and defeat.  Which is how escalation happens.  Or a pilot goes down and he and some rescuers are captured.  We probably have some SoF doing liason with rebels somewhere, on the ground.  Or the bombing is needlessly inaccurate.  Combined arms works.  Telling the enemy you won't use ground forces and the conditions under which you will attack makes it easy to work around.  That "days, not weeks" thing needs to be hung around Obama's neck.     

Posted by: Beagle at March 29, 2011 10:13 AM (sOtz/)

72 Just looking at the wiki page on the serbs explains why the kids at AP decided not to go there.

Posted by: ?????????????????????? at March 29, 2011 10:13 AM (k1rwm)

73 Can anybody answer a question?  Was Carter expected to win re-election the way Obama is?  Did it surprise anybody at the time that Reagan won?  I am being serious.  I need a frame of reference to figure out how boned we are.  I find it hard to believe anybody thinks Obama will win again, and need to know if Carter was also considered a sure thing-until he wasn't.

Posted by: chillin the most at March 29, 2011 10:18 AM (6IV8T)

74 Sorry to go slightly OT but I just saw on Fox that we have AC-130 gunships in Libya.  Imagine that after watching CdrM's porn from this weekend.

Posted by: TaiwanJoe at March 29, 2011 10:19 AM (PAetZ)

75 Sorry to go slightly OT but I just saw on Fox that we have AC-130 gunships in Libya.

And A10s.  I wonder why we need ground attack aircraft for policing a no-fly zone, but then again I am a moron.

Posted by: CUS at March 29, 2011 10:22 AM (wOGfT)

76 "To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition..."

Wasn't it France and Britain that did the organizational grunt work (because Libya is of significant interest to them) and pretty much said, "We're going in with or without you, Barack."? Barack was on the golf course and was embarrassed into jumping into the fray (without the facts) so that he wouldn't look like a wimp. Now, as always, he's in his CYA mode straddling the fence every which way because the outcome will impact his political standing.

You can disregard any premise Obama makes by default. All those assertions about what he did or didn't do are typically nothing but.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 29, 2011 10:25 AM (swuwV)

77 Can anybody answer a question?  Was Carter expected to win re-election the way Obama is?  Did it surprise anybody at the time that Reagan won?  I am being serious.  I need a frame of reference to figure out how boned we are.  I find it hard to believe anybody thinks Obama will win again, and need to know if Carter was also considered a sure thing-until he wasn't.

Posted by: chillin the most at March 29, 2011 03:18 PM (6IV8T)

I didn't pay nearly as much attention to politics then and now but up until the first debate, Reagan was considered a fucking nut who nobody in their right mind would vote for and sure to be Goldwater v2.0 in terms of electoral carnage.  Then Ronnie kicked dhimmie Earl's ass convincingly and came off as a genial sort with much greater competence than adultery-of-the-heart and the rout was on.  The MFM still tried to paint him as a warmonger but their heart wasn't completely in it because, don't forget, Malaise was so fucking inept that Fat Turdy Kennedy mounted, not a waitress, but a primary challenge.  So there were lots of people that couldn't stand the worthless fuck and the MFM could only do so much in their snivelling quisling role.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2011 10:30 AM (Jk7tF)

78 Thank you, Captain Hate!  So, maybe there is hope after all, and re-election is not a foregone conclusion!

Posted by: chillin the most at March 29, 2011 10:33 AM (6IV8T)

79 Don't despair, chillin the most; we will prevail no matter how inept the Repukes are.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2011 10:38 AM (Jk7tF)

80 Meremortal: "Why is he doing this? A reelection ploy? Risky. I feel like Bob Dylan's Mr. Jones. There's something going on here but I don't know what it is..."

Ceding American sovereignty to supranational organizations. The thinking goes, "If the international community believes and endorses X, then America should, too." Consider it the foundation to be applied on all matters and the rationale to make the U.S. subservient to the whims of globalists (Marxists) like Obama to spread the wealth.

It might seem like a stretch to use a war as the stepping stone to peaceful subservience elsewhere as policy, but note Obama's (and team's) associations and organizations like The Open Society. This war is a pretext.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 29, 2011 10:38 AM (swuwV)

81 He still could not explain the mission.  As far as I can tell, he sees us having two missions: the military one of establishing the NFZ which will now "pass" to NATO (don't get me started on that little legerdemain), and a political one of removing Qaddafi.  He sees these as somehow separate missions.  Those are the sort of distinctions without a difference that clever speech-writers and memo-drafters in Washington come up with that prove impossible to implement in the field.  What if the political opposition needs our military support to bring down Qaddafi? Is the answer, "No?"  What if Qaddafi won't leave, and is spoiling for a fight?  So what is the exit strategy? How do we know when the military mission can stand down? Can the military cease and desist while Qaddafi is still in power?

Folks, as suspected.  There is no plan except to bomb away and hope that something happens.

Posted by: Hosni Mubarak at March 29, 2011 10:41 AM (tvs2p)

82 Captain Hate: "The MFM still tried to paint him as a warmonger [...] the MFM could only do so much in their snivelling quisling role."

Exactly. Reagan was the extreme, crazy cowboy nut. And he still kicked Carter's ass (with great glee from middle America outward) so hard that both he and the MFM are still smarting.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 29, 2011 10:42 AM (swuwV)

83 Well, given how badly we stumbled and shambled in our Clinton-era military interventions (does the name 'Les Aspin' ring a bell?) that's a pretty damn low bar to set for yourself.  

Les Aspin.  That name alone is enough to dampen any Clinton nostalgia one might be tempted to feel.

Posted by: Slublog at March 29, 2011 10:45 AM (0nqdj)

84 my friends talk as though they know we've been on the ground since day 1 of this mess and they are really pissed about it, even if they are lib/dems

Posted by: curious at March 29, 2011 10:45 AM (k1rwm)

85 He should have just said it directly; "I Lord, god and king, Obama, am better than Reagan, Clinton or that liar Bush."

More correctly, he should have said he is slightly better than a day old diaper full of shit. Or slightly less of an idiot than Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Marcus at March 29, 2011 10:46 AM (CHrmZ)

86 Posted by: Slublog at March 29, 2011 03:45 PM (0nqdj)

I'm hearing a lot of bill stories lately.  One of my friend told the aspirin factory bombing story the other day and one about OBL being on a plane and bill being offered him and bill saying no thanks.   No one believed my friend when he said that but, he's studying for a doctorate so I'm thinking it might be true, however, I'd never heard that before.

Posted by: curious at March 29, 2011 10:47 AM (k1rwm)

87 I find it hard to believe anybody thinks Obama will win again, and need to know if Carter was also considered a sure thing-until he wasn't.

Posted by: chillin the most at March 29, 2011 03:18 PM (6IV8T)

Carter got killed by a double-double ... double digit inflation rate and double digit interest rates.  We might see a double digit inflation rate by election day, but I seriously doubt there will be double digit interest rates, unless QE2 blows up the T-bill market.  If that happens, nothing will save Obama.  Alan Grayson could beat him in the primaries and Trig Palin could beat him in the general election.

Posted by: Hosni Mubarak at March 29, 2011 10:50 AM (tvs2p)

88 carter was a peanut head

Posted by: curious at March 29, 2011 10:51 AM (k1rwm)

89 More correctly, he should have said he is slightly better than a day old diaper full of shit.

Posted by: Marcus at March 29, 2011 03:46 PM (CHrmZ)

My dog had major diarrhea this morning; I was comforted as I cleaned it up that doing that was aesthetically preferable to watching Stumblebum Ojizzmop's performance last night.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2011 10:52 AM (Jk7tF)

90 Maybe I'm crazy, but all that I'm seeing on the MFM today is criticism of the speech. Maybe the veneer is finally cracking?

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 29, 2011 10:55 AM (YmPwQ)

91

Posted by: curious at March 29, 2011 03:47 PM (k1rwm)

Osama was hanging out in the Sudan, and they offered Osama to Clinton.  He graciously declined.  But he did take out an aspirin factory in the Sudan after the US African Embassy bombings.

Posted by: RickZ at March 29, 2011 10:55 AM (vGy3W)

92 If you like your feckless, lying crapweasle of a President, you can keep your feckless, lying crapweasle of a President.

Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at March 29, 2011 10:56 AM (6IReR)

93 "It might seem like a stretch to use a war as the stepping stone to peaceful subservience elsewhere as policy, but note Obama's (and team's) associations and organizations like The Open Society." It's not much of a stretch. It establishes a precedent dangerous to our national sovereignty: The UNSC votes--even with significant abstentions--and the US hops to. That shitstain, Princess Barack, and the Clinton/Power/Rice types are bucking for a promotion to a world stage they're trying to create. Up until now, going from US government to a role in a supranational organization has been a step down. I would not put it past these evil fucks to bring our country down just to make it a step up, instead.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 29, 2011 10:59 AM (Pzf4N)

94 Maybe another mysterious malfunctioning cruise missle like in the Balkans. 

You just write Chinese Embassy on the side with a Sharpie, turn the knob & bingo.

Posted by: Calvin, boy missile technician at March 29, 2011 10:59 AM (FQACB)

95 >>Can anybody answer a question? Was Carter expected to win re-election the way Obama is? Did it surprise anybody at the time that Reagan won? I am being serious. I need a frame of reference to figure out how boned we are. I find it hard to believe anybody thinks Obama will win again, and need to know if Carter was also considered a sure thing-until he wasn't. Carter was ahead for most of the race and many thought he was going to get re-elected right up until the last week of the race. Just about every poll showed it to be neck and neck going into the last debate where Reagan destroyed Carter. Carter did the usual liberal thing of saying Reagan wanted to end SS and Medicare and Ronnie smiled and gave him the "There you go again" line and people started seeing that he wasn't the monster the left tried to paint him as. He finished up with the coup de grace, "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago" and that was the end of Carter. Anyone who tells you that Obama is a lock for 2012 knows nothing about politics. Shit happens and things change.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 29, 2011 11:01 AM (TMB3S)

96 @97 self I forgot to make my point: The "peaceful subservience" goal is nothing more than a pretext for satisfying the will to power. Most of the Open Society types probably drink deeply of the kool aid, but I have no doubt that there are sociopaths among them ready to charge whatever breach is made.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 29, 2011 11:04 AM (Pzf4N)

97 You know I always thought that a very important speech like this should be given from the oval office, with a tight shot of the president's face.  When I learned it was going to be at this university in an auditorium earlier so as not to interfere with dancing with the stars and to kick off his campaign, that made more sense to me.  But I never expected him to say the very same things he's been saying and not to mention Japan at all.  That's why it was a campaign stop cause isn't that how they do it, repeat the same stuff over and over and over again changing the names to match the city, county, state they are in?

Posted by: curious at March 29, 2011 11:09 AM (k1rwm)

98 Maybe I'm crazy, but all that I'm seeing on the MFM today is criticism of the speech. Maybe the veneer is finally cracking?

No.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 29, 2011 11:11 AM (TpXEI)

99 Look at this, oh boy next he is going to take credit for inventing the internet or something;

Anti-genocide advocate credits Obama for Libyan uprising

http://tinyurl.com/4bt5opq

Posted by: Marcus at March 29, 2011 11:14 AM (Imfcz)

100 He uses all these big fat words to seem important. Not to make light of it, but this Libya we're talking about. Their entire flight capability was probably knocked out the first night. Bush had the bigger war (his Dad too), deal with it Obama Sissypants. And Bush 41 actually had the balls to invade a country for humanitarian reasons (I.e. Somalia). Why, O why won't Obama compare his operation to THAT. Here's my question: what backdoor concessions did Obama have to make to Russia and China to get the UN resolution passed?

Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at March 29, 2011 11:17 AM (jGsK9)

101 FRONT TOWARD LEFT: "Most of the Open Society types probably drink deeply of the kool aid, but I have no doubt that there are sociopaths among them ready to charge whatever breach is made."

No question. There will always be useful idiots. There will always be more powerful sociopaths leading them. Every tyranny follows this method.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 29, 2011 11:17 AM (swuwV)

102 Rush had a great point:  even if you are an Obama supporter and agree with the "kinetic military action" in Libya, did last night's speech answer any of your questions?  Uh, no!

Posted by: runningrn at March 29, 2011 11:18 AM (ihSHD)

103 I just witnessed a fascinating discussion.  person #1 said he was very disappointed as BO is turning out to be "GWB with a different color skin"  Person #2, said "well it might appear that way to you but think of it from his position, he got into the job and may have learned things that he had no way of knowing before and this may have changed his ideas a little bit but, it's all good cause we can trust him and we couldn't trust Bush at all so no matter what he does, you know it's to benefit the little guy, the common man, the welfare mom, the union worker, so really just have faith, it's all going to work out in the end, you'll see".

Oh dear God I had to walk away before I said things I might later regret.

but I'm thinking I just witnessed a tryout of some of the new talking points.


Posted by: curious at March 29, 2011 11:23 AM (k1rwm)

104

Maybe I'm crazy, but all that I'm seeing on the MFM today is criticism of the speech. Maybe the veneer is finally cracking?

The MFM covers Barry's ass better than his mom jeans do

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 29, 2011 11:27 AM (1Jaio)

105 I have to admit that last night I knew the speech was coming, but I had to get ready for work when it started.  I heard Dear Leader's voice from the other room and just from the inflection I knew he was blowing smoke up everyone's ass.  Why oh why do people still believe this POS.

Posted by: Soona at March 29, 2011 11:27 AM (mXRya)

106 and may have learned things that he had no way of knowing before

Umm.  He was a Senator beforehand.  If he had no way of knowing any of this before, he was not doing his job then.

Wait...

Posted by: CUS at March 29, 2011 11:29 AM (wOGfT)

107 Not sure which was funnier last night; Obama backhandedly ripping Clinton for Bosnia, or ripping Bush for Iraq . . . while discussing his Libyan war.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 29, 2011 11:33 AM (PyWLX)

108 >>Here's my question: what backdoor concessions did Obama have to make to Russia and China to get the UN resolution passed? Why would Obama have to give Russia or China any concessions when NATO turning their focus off of them and intensifying it on the middle east? This is a big win for Russia and China and had they put up a stink at the UN they would have been open to charges that they allowed "genocide" to occur. The next time Russia gets all jiggy with Chechnya or Georgia or any of the other former satellites they love to meddle with who is the UN to say squat now? If China wants to crack down on their restive Muslims, same thing. NATO has now increased their focus on the middle east, the problem to the south of NATO Europe and away from the east where Russia and China can act with increased impunity. Even if Qaddafi goes tomorrow we and our NATO powers will be tied up in Libya for years. They just won the future without lifting a finger.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 29, 2011 11:38 AM (TMB3S)

109 Why oh why do people still believe this POS.

Posted by: Soona at March 29, 2011 04:27 PM (mXRya)


It takes a big person to be able to admit they were wrong about something.  Look around you, in your own life, people rarely are willing to admit they were wrong about something even when it is obvious to everyone around them and even if they were publicly proven wrong like in a job situation.  Most people find ways to circumvent the "I'm sorry" or the "wow, was I wrong".   But before they even get to that point they make it a point to fight the very thought that they could be wrong.

the 52% fell hard for this guy.  they went all in like never before.  Since many people don't have close extended family and more than a few close friends, the campaign capitalized on this and became their friend and even he became their friend sending them emails and texts and stuff.   They all now have battered woman syndrome and it's going to take a while before they realize that getting hit in the face is "not their fault".   When they do, if they do, let's hope it isn't too late for this country.

Posted by: curious at March 29, 2011 11:40 AM (k1rwm)

110 Yeah, but right now, they're not. And if it turns out that the "freedom fighters" are actually AQ, which is looking very likely, this whole thing could drag him down quickly.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 29, 2011 11:40 AM (YmPwQ)

111 Posted by: JackStraw at March 29, 2011 04:38 PM (TMB3S)

batchelor said last night that there was no veto from russia cause they were led to believe it would only be a no fly zone, nothing more.  So under those circumstances they were willing to abstain.  Batchelor used the word "mislead" when speaking about this situation and russia.

Posted by: curious at March 29, 2011 11:46 AM (k1rwm)

112 In fact it took 3 1/2 years for real intervention in Bosnia. Do you count impotent UN soldiers being tied to the electric poles as hostages as an effective force? In the meantime Serbs perpetrated genocide, mass rapes, concentration/death camps... 200 thousand dead, 1.5 million displaced. Do you not think Ghadaffi is capable of the same? The man is crazy! I don't have a crystal ball and don't know what coulda/shoulda happened, but I for one am proud US used it's superior air power to prevent mass massacre. That's high moral ground, not WMD shite.

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2011 01:02 PM (ssJdi)

113 Interesting that Obama is citing the first war that we fought to support islamic terrorists as justification for our second war in support of islamic terrorists .

Posted by: Mark E at March 29, 2011 02:45 PM (VYJC+)

114 115 I don't give a shit about misleading Russia.In fact Iove sticking it to those fuckers.Let's face it,no R would ever get away with going beyond a UN resolution,the French prove once again that when their interests are at stake they have no trouble lying and cheating to get what they want.

Posted by: steevy at March 29, 2011 03:48 PM (k8LmM)

Posted by: juice at March 29, 2011 08:48 PM (wQj1+)

116 UNPROFOR was set up initially to deal with the war between Croatia and Milosevic's rump Yugoslavia.  When hostilities opened up in Bosnia their mandate was extended to cover that territory as well. IFOR was set up specifically to deal with the Bosnian conflict.

Posted by: Decaf at March 30, 2011 12:49 AM (3+xlM)

117 My tom Kludge was very good at opening the lever door handles around the house. Couldn't keep him out of any room.

Posted by: lingerie wholesale at April 01, 2011 03:35 AM (t86IJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
144kb generated in CPU 0.19, elapsed 1.2972 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1991 seconds, 353 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.