Obama's Omission: Libya Not A State Sponsor Of Terrorism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Jul 4, 2011.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-omission-libya-not-state-sponsor

    Obama's Omission: Libya Not A State Sponsor Of Terrorism

    Friday, July 01, 2011
    By Eric Scheiner

    (CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama continued to discuss U.S. military action in Libya on Wednesday, but his statements didn’t always reflect the facts.

    When making his argument for getting the U.S. military involved, Obama claimed that it was in the interest of national security to get Moammar Gaddafi step down from power, “As a consequence, a guy who was a state sponsor of terrorist operations against the United States of America is pinned down, and the noose is tightening around him.”

    But, Libya was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism in 2007. The move came after Ghaddafi renounced terrorism and paid billions of dollars to settle claims with victims of terrorist acts.

    Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton even met with one of Moammar’s sons in Washington D.C. in 2009 saying, “We deeply value the relationship between the United States and Libya.”
     
  2. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,187
    Likes Received:
    611
    Article alleges that an Obama statement didn’t always reflect the facts.

    Obama: “As a consequence, a guy who was a state sponsor of terrorist operations against the United States of America is pinned down..."

    Article notes that Ghaddafi was removed from the state sponsored list in 2007. Therefore Obama's statement is factual. Ghaddafi WAS a state sponsor of terrorism.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    So?

    The article is correct. He did, in fact, omit the fact that Libya is no longer a sponsor of terrorism with a strong implication that it still is.

    Probably to intentionally mislead his listeners.

    "was a state sponsor"...."is pinned down" Begs the question , why is he now pinned down if he is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism?
    Reason...illegal military action by the Obama administration.

    Brilliant phrasing, but still only fools those that don't pay attention and those that don't want to.
     
    #3 carpro, Jul 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2011
  4. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,187
    Likes Received:
    611
    He said Ghaddafi WAS a state sponsor of terrorism. Was. Was. Obama didn't omit anything.

    Because he's involved in a civil war against his own citizens and the U.S. and NATO intervened. Removing a nation from the state sponsored terrorism list doesn't make them immune to action by the U.S.

    Yeah, sure looks like it's illegal military action, but there is no linkage between this action and Obama saying Libya is on the state sponsored terrorism list no matter how hard an extremely biased news source tries to make it so.
     
    #4 InTheLight, Jul 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2011
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Obama intentionally made the terrorism connection to try to legitimize his illegal military military action in the minds of those susceptible to that type "suggestion".

    After all ,it worked with you and you are sooooooo much smarter than the average Obama apologist that you caught it... but stiill believe it.

    One question: where does he say that Libya is no longer considered a sponsor of terrorism?

    You answer should be positively Clintonian. Since it depends on what the meaning of "was"was and "is" is.

    Go ahead. Show us how smart you are. Should be fun. :laugh: A true Obama apologist will take this and run with it.
     
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,187
    Likes Received:
    611
    I'll do that right after you prove that the vast majority of small business jobs are created by 3% of small businesses.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1701050&postcount=31

    Anyway, there is nothing for me to show here. Obama said about Ghaddafi: a guy who WAS a state sponsor of terrorism.
     
  7. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    I'll try again.

     
  8. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,187
    Likes Received:
    611
    Obama: “As a consequence, a guy who was a state sponsor of terrorist..."

    Asked and answered. Seriously, give it up.

    Now, please show me that 3% of small businesses hire the majority of employees.
     
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Exactly the Clintonian answer that was expected. Obama apologists never disappoint. :thumbs:

    It depends on what the meaning of "was" is and leaves out what the meaning of "is" is.

    So, Im finished with this thread unless someone who wants to do something beside quibble responds.
     
    #9 carpro, Jul 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2011
  10. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,187
    Likes Received:
    611
    Yes, reading comprehension is a necessary component to understanding.

    Now, please show me that 3% of small businesses hire the majority of employees.
     
  11. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    This worked for Bush in 2003. Were you against Bush invading Iraq?
     
  12. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Doesn't matter. The Iraq invasion was legal. The Libyan action is not.

    I would support the Libyan action if it was legal.
     
  13. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,187
    Likes Received:
    611
    Yet every time Bush gave his rationale for invading Iraq one of the reasons was because Saddam Hussein had once gassed his own citizens. Since you are criticizing Obama for a supposed omission on Libya, was Bush wrong by omitting a phrase clarifying that Hussein was not currently gassing Kurds?
     
  14. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Irrelevant.
     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,187
    Likes Received:
    611
    Irrelevant? It's the entire basis of your post!

    You say Obama should be criticized for not making it clear that Ghaddafi was no longer sponsoring state terrorism when Obama makes military moves against him, yet you don't think that Bush should have made it clear that Saddam was no longer gassing his citizens when he made military moves against him?
     
  16. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0

    Give us a break. Saddam is not even a close comparison
     
  17. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,187
    Likes Received:
    611
    I'm not comparing Saddam to Ghaddafi. I'm comparing Obama to Bush to point out Carpro's inconsistency.

    Carpro is all bothered because Obama didn't explicitly say that Ghaddafi was no longer sponsoring state terrorism as he makes military moves against him yet Carpro seems to be OK with the fact that Bush did not explicitly state that Saddam is no longer gassing Kurds when he made military moves against him.

    So apparently it's OK in Carpro's mind if Bush invokes past terrorism on the part of Saddam as a pretext for military action but it's not OK if Obama invokes past terrorism by Ghaddafi as a pretext for military action.
     
  18. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Iraq
     
  19. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,187
    Likes Received:
    611
    It's not about Iraq. It's about Carpro's complaint with Obama and his non-complaint with Bush over the same tactics employed by both Presidents.
     
  20. John Toppass

    John Toppass
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    7
    C'mon, everyone knows that Obama did do something positive--------- He made Bush look like a brilliant president.
     

Share This Page

Loading...