Obama signs order to approve covert operations in Libya
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
March 30, 2011 4:11pm CST
Weeks before Prs. Obama "explained" what the mission in Libya is, he signed an order for covert ops in Libya he opens the way for using special operations troops (Special Forces, Rangers, Joint Special Operations Command, Navy SEALS, etc). It also opens the way for the CIA to use paid informants and conduct espionage ops.
This was supposed to be secret, but was leaked (either purposely by the administration, or against Obama's wishes). He did it weeks ago, which means it predates his promises and explanations.. and UN Res. 1973.
This basically makes everything Prs. Obama said in his recent "explanation" pretty much null and void.
So what do you think?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110330/pl_nm/us_libya_usa_order_2
4 people like this
9 responses
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
30 Mar 11
This just substantiates my opinion that every word that comes out of this man's mouth is a piece of crap. Everything he does and says has an ulterior method to scam the American people.
3 people like this
@bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
31 Mar 11
At least President Obama did not "BANKRUPT" the country and he didn't let the most wanted and dangerous man animal on the planet escape after 9-11 like someone whose name I won't mention but he sat in an elementary school class room while the WTC and the Pentagon were being destroyed!
1 person likes this
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
31 Mar 11
At least I am an American who is proud to live in America therefore my opinion is worth something!
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
31 Mar 11
Bigal, yet another Obama "supporter" who can't seem to "support" him without bringing up Bush.
Can you please, just once, defend your guy on his own merits?
3 people like this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
30 Mar 11
Good, if that's true ParaTed! Just think, had GW used our great special ops to dig Saddam out of that silly hole in the ground ... how much richer America would be today!! And, just suppose GW had allowed our special ops to go into Tora Bora and flush Bin Laden out of that mountain how much more richer America would be today!!
Alas, thank all the "gods" for a thinking President!!
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
30 Mar 11
But this is the opposite of what he told us Gladys. I'm not against using Special Ops in Libya, but when he signed this order BEFORE he told us that there would only be No Fly Zones, your hero proved (once again) that him and integrity have never met.
Btw, I have friends who were involved in special operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, so you can take that lie back too.
Also, if you can't defend Obama without bringing up Bush then don't bother. News flash, Bush isn't president anymore.
Please have a little integrity.
3 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
30 Mar 11
It's hard to let go of so much hate.
2 people like this
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
30 Mar 11
This is getting to be a reoccurring theme with her. Blame Bush because President Obama failed at something.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
31 Mar 11
It was definitely leaked on purpose to fit in with Obama's "working behind the scenes" speech on Libya. However, it doesn't mean much. It would be more surprising if the CIA and the military were not conducting special ops and information gathering.
However, it also means that Obama did have or should have had more information on the rebels and who was involved with them (al Qaeda, for instance) long before he supported and initiated a no-fly zone. Some of that information might have been helpful in explaining to the public why he did not favor that action.
Basically, the no fly zone helps the rebels but it doesn't win the war for them. Qadaffi can afford a lot of mercenaries for a long time. If the rebels don't get "boots on the ground" support and/or weapons supplied to them, they won't win.
So the most important questions go unanswered still: How is this a necessary move to protect US interests? What US interests? Who are we supporting? Should we be in favor of supporting the rebels? What would a rebel win look like in terms of the future government and political disposition of Libya?
Seems like Obama should have some of those answers, but doesn't.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
2 Apr 11
So, you're a "truther" who hasn't caught up yet with the information that came out of Wikileaks that supports Bush's statements about the intelligence they had on WMDs or the confession of the guy who purposely gave that intelligence to our operatives.
But since 9-11 has nothing to do with this, let's concentrate on this situation.
I know why anyone who disagrees with Obama on anything is called hater or racist, it's because it means that no one has to actually defend Obama's policies or actions. It's the easy way out. It's also getting pretty old. Obama was elected with a 70% approval rating. Look at his numbers today. Basically, that would have to mean that since he was elected, millions of Americans who voted for him have since become irrational "haters" or become racists. If honest disagreement with his policies is not possible, that's the only explanation.
Defend what he has done, don't give us the "Bush did it" excuse or the "you're all haters" excuse. Can you address the actual issue? What does the housing crisis have to do with Libya?
The only side I see operating out of blind emotion is the Obama "crushers". They have this huge crush on him and can see no wrong in anything he does or says. There's no logic, only blind adoration without basis.
1 person likes this
@bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
2 Apr 11
That's not a fair evaluation of the situation. All of you President Obama "haters" out there for whatever reason you "hate" him or just because of his name didn't have a thing to say when the previous administration "LIED" about the reason for Iraq involvement and spent nearly all of the nations treasury and cost the country thousands of useful vibrant lives.
How quickly we forgot how during the 9-11 disaster and all planes were grounded except the flight carrying Bin Laden's family out of the country.
Then there was the financial and housing crisis which in my opinion that previous administration handled very badly. Now President Obama is in office. I wonder what would be said about him if his name was Smith or Johnson and his father had been from India or some other eastern country or Europe? 
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
31 Mar 11
I think the prez should not do anything "in secret". But it does make me think..when we all think he is "dithering" and indecisive perhaps he's doing stuff behind the scenes and behind our backs that could either benefit or hurt us. I know this is done by every prez but with this one he's been so duplicitous and hypocritical that I distrust him even more after hearing this.
2 people like this
@bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
2 Apr 11
Hi you two,
Can I jump in? Having been in the military and having held a few "sensitive positions" I know from experience what you hear and see from the media about national security matters contains alot of dis-information for the enemey's benefit. Remember "SHOCK AND AWE"? Saddam knew the military was coming but he had no idea when and where and how. The press didn't even know at that time. No one said anything about that and especially after the WMD story turned out to be a "LIE".
No, even I do not agree with everything he has done or said but that's the nature of the job. You can't please everyone. At least he is trying to do good for country and the world in some EXTREME and trying times in man's history; BUT THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME NOR IT WILL BE THE LAST AS LONG AS THERE ARE HUMANS ON THIS ROCK.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
2 Apr 11
Hi, Bigal! Thanks for giving your two cents!
You're right, it's not the first or last time and I don't know what to think. I know some things can't be out in the open for the very reason you cited. It just makes me nervous when things are done covertly.
You really believe the press publishes things to aid the enemy? I'm sure some do but I wonder if it's for financial or political reasons or both. As for WMD, I was convinced when Colin Powell pointed out all the traffic of big trucks going into Syria right after Saddam learned we were on the way. I guess we'll never know if there were WMD in those trucks or not but it gives me reason to believe there were.
And you're right, you can't please everyone. But someone in a leadership position should do their best to do what's right for the country and I just don't believe another war is the best thing right now.
1 person likes this
@aerous (13434)
• Philippines
1 Apr 11
I don't think this will pave the way for the ground operation to get out kahdaffi. But as US said they are not leading th operations and let the NATO to handle it...
One thing I don't understand in Libya, is that no leader of the opposition. What happen next when kahdaffi out of context?
2 people like this
@aerous (13434)
• Philippines
3 Apr 11
Hello bigal,
I don't think the words "religious war" is the right terms. Because there is no show that the battle in Libya is about religion. This is about the greediness of power of some individuals. They uphold power to make more money in their pocket and to be rich...money and politics involved here...not religion.
Hello Rollo1,
This war is not Christian against Moslem's. Look at the news if their is an involvement or anything that people around the stage talking about religion. People there are redress their grievances for change. Because they want more security from the government...for the purpose.
Do not stage out that trouble in Libya and other Arab countries is war with Christians against Moslem's...This is political, my friend...there is no religious involvement...
1 person likes this
@bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
9 Apr 11
I stand corrected about the exact time frame of the conflict but the point it has been going a LONG unecessary time with huge lost of life on both for the words in two books that virtually say the same thing ie. Christianity and Islam. The Bible and Koran say virtually the same thing including the names of the profits in both books. So what is the issue? It makes no sense unless it is all about the politics of oil in that part of the world. Then I tend to agree. It does seems to be more about as you say, the MONEY.
So from what you two think, religion has virtually nothing to do with this on- going conflict? I never thought about it that way but upon reflection you could have something there. It is an interesting thought. If that is the case, "GREED AND NEED" are the foundations for this ongoing conflict?
Thanks for your enlighting prospective on this topic.
@bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
2 Apr 11
That's the million dollar question! It looks like Lybia will have to form a completely new government an that will not be easy I'm afraid.
What I think president Obama is trying to do is bring the Islamic and western world togather in peace. I admire him for that but at the same time I feel he and the U.S. government are fighting a losing battle. This religious war with Christian againist Moslem has been going on for over 7000 years. The only thing that has changed is the technology. What I think the president is trying to do is bring the two factions togather in peace and I wish him luck even though I do not agree with some of his policies he at least trying to do what he thinks is right. 1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
31 Mar 11
I think many of Obama's liberal supporters are unhappy with his invasion of Lybia and have leaked this little scandalous affair to the press. What could the admininstration possibly gain by leaking it? Could this be an impeachable offence?
Will anyone notice, if it is?
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
5 Apr 11
President Bush is a hero for going to war against Saddam Hussein. He probably saved us all from that madman. And, as was previously pointed out, his decision was based on intelligence information that had been gathered by several nations.
1 person likes this
@bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
8 Apr 11
Yep, and I suppose you believe that without question. I just saw last week on an very "accredited" network,("History Channel"), disclosing what "REALLY" went down with "Gulf War 1 & 2" and it was nothing like what was reported to the world. You would probably feel differently or at least question more the government you love so much. I think the program was either "History's Secrets" or "History Unclassified". If given the opportunity you should check them out. You might really learn something.1 person likes this
@bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
2 Apr 11
In the first place this not an "impeachable offense". If this is then what the previous president did was down right criminal. When you lie to the nation about something as serious as going to war; if that's not an impeachable offense I don't what is.1 person likes this
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
31 Mar 11
looks like we might be giving some weapons to the Rebels it wouldn't be the first time we as a nation have done things like that. Using Special Operations to give weapons to the Afganhistan people to fight the USSR comes to mind. So Obama signed and order to use Special Forces and didn't tell the public about it.... This is news how I mean really the Special Forces are in use for a ton of different Operations that we as Civs will never know about as well we are in the dark about such things which for some cases may be a very good thing and well wouldn't this be Classified so shouldn't the person who leaked it be charged with Treason? I mean people on here where screaming about Wikileaks a few months ago if this leak wasn't authorized then I think some one needs to be put on trial. Yeah I am just being consistent you know that hard thing to be it seems but if this wasn't authorized and a person leaked it without permission then I think someone needs to be investigated and then arrested have a trial and if found guilty should be sentence like all treasonous people should be. I mean this could be putting American Lives at danger but who cares right because now we can go after the President for lying to us because you know Presidents don't ever ever lie.
Sorry this isn't News this is just the Military and the Commander and Chief doing what they feel is needed. They decided to not release it to the Public once again not the first time.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
31 Mar 11
Oh, I have no problem with Prs. Obama signing orders for covert ops in secret. That's kind of the point of the term "covert". However, this is exactly the kind of thing he promised it wouldn't be.
He is nothing but a pawn for the UN and George Sorros. He is bought and paid for.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
31 Mar 11
As for the leak, yes, whoever leaked it should face the consequences. But the facts still remain.
1 person likes this
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
1 Apr 11
Aren't all politicians I mean I can think of only one that might not be paid for. Just one out of the thousands that we have in power. and the 500 or so that are in Washington D.C
1 person likes this
@bigal3 (1231)
• Thailand
31 Mar 11
Having been in a political potentially and ultimately hot conflict (Viet Nam), I know things in a potential combat situation are very fluid and sometime change very quickly. This could be one of those situations.
From what I see on the various news networks the president has pretty much kept to his original statement of not putting "boots on the ground". Even at that we as everyday people and that includes the press are not told everything for the sake on "National Security". I would even go so far as to say some of what is released is "dis-information" to keep the bad guys off balance. In this age of instant information that could be a useful tool or weapon.
The one thing that bothers me most is that the president did not start this situation. If memory serves me right this started eight years ago plus. He's getting the blame for something that happened long before anyone knew his name or that he was even going to run for president. REMEMBER HE INHERITED THIS MESS! It is not fair to blame him for the economy or the middle east situations. Don't forget "CONGRESS" has alot to do with the economic situation and with the middle east and state department matters. President Obama wasn't even thought of when most of this mess started so DON'T BLAME ONLY HIM! What about the previous administration?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
1 Apr 11
If I hear one more mindless "he inherited this mess" I'm going to puke. Only a cowards campaigns for a job, then whines about it once he gets in. I know when I was an artillery section chief, I "inherited" lots of problems. Every new leader does. I also know that if the answer to my commander about any short comings in inspections was "But Gunny, I inherited these problems", I would have been replaced before I even got "problems" out of my mouth.
It's a piss poor excuse! Yes, he inherited the problems, but it was HIM who said he had ideas on how to fix them. So far he's abandoned most of his "blueprint for change" and has accomplished little to nothing.
2 people like this
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
31 Mar 11
A conservative media watchdog says mainstream television networks have shown a blatant double standard when it comes to the coverage of two major incursions under different presidents.
When President George W. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, many in the media chastised him, even though he had prior congressional approval to authorize force based on reports that Saddam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction.”
However, when President Barack Obama recently ordered air strikes on Libya without congressional approval, the same media failed to challenge him, even reporting it was the right thing to do. Since the operations began last week, the consensus appears to be that Libya does not pose any national security risks for the U.S.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/middle-east-conflicts-reveal-media-bias/
2 people like this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
31 Mar 11
Hey, I understand your frustration but after 2 years don't you think it's time to stop the blame game? He begged for the job and spent millions getting it and he hasn't stopped whining about his predecessor since he took office--it's getting old. I have never seen such a man in office who blames everyone else for tough times. You don't see the previous president criticizing the present one, he is very gracious when he discusses Obama and yet Obama is constantly heaping scorn on Bush.
Yes, he inherited the mess. But it's time for him and all of American to stop whining and assigning blame and TACKLE THE DAMNED PROBLEMS!!!! And while he's at it, he could stop spending money like water and demand that Congress decide on and vote on a balanced budget that includes some drastic spending cuts.
3 people like this
