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.”
Obama's Omission: Libya Not A State Sponsor Of Terrorism
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Jul 4, 2011.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
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. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
I'll try again.
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Asked and answered. Seriously, give it up.
Now, please show me that 3% of small businesses hire the majority of employees. -
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. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Now, please show me that 3% of small businesses hire the majority of employees. -
-
I would support the Libyan action if it was legal. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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? -
Give us a break. Saddam is not even a close comparison -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
C'mon, everyone knows that Obama did do something positive--------- He made Bush look like a brilliant president.
Page 1 of 2