Fact checking Obama's Libya speech

WASHINGTON - There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the United States in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Muammar Qaddafi's forces.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning over the reins to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

Also, 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.

Coverage of Obama's speech on Libya
NATO bombs let rebels fight on Qaddafi's turf
Complete Coverage: Anger in the Arab World

Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his televised address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

___

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors - Britain and France - combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

___

OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Qaddafi's forces - and on the supply and communications links that support them - is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said, "We continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

___

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."

___

OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi's deadly advance."

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Qaddafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."

Only small numbers of Qaddafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. Gortney said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."

___

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Qaddafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so - by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

[Varix22]

First I do not agree with our wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. However I think we are simplifying our foreign policy. It should not just be we never do anything at all or we must take out every dictator in the world. Should the concept be since we can't help everyone we shouldn't help anyone at all? I strongly believe that democracies that are successful are largely successful when the people have to fight for it. I think where the US can help is supporting said people in their endeavors. We shouldn't go nation building, but we can tip the favor to those who support democracy. This is what happened for us when the French got involved in the Revolutionary War. Note they didn't do it to really support democracy either. I think you can draw different reasons why supporting action in Libya is different from Iraq. What would be the same and hypercritical on Obama's part would be if Iraq had been truly like Libya. Where Iraqi's rebelled against Saddam, and lead resistance against him, and the US got involved to simply tip the scales.

I think success would be unlikely for the Ivory Coast. What would it gain them if we intervene without popular support. We get another Iraq? Its a noble idea to save everyone but you can't. However if we can help out then its worth doing. Libya may devolve into more war. It may become peaceful. So long as we stay supportive and do not attempt nation building I believe we are doing the right thing.

[EdMarch]

While it is highly entertaining to watch the two sides misrepresent the other and sputter in high dudgeon at the other's ripostes, but IT AIN'T FIXIN' THE PROBLEM!

[fanofthetruth]

What fact checks? It was all lies.

[crazyname]

Pretty amazing, if he were worried about casualties, why send an old ferry over to pick up US civilians, why take 4 weeks and after the big Q starts winning.
got 36 billion in Libian money, use some of it to free the country and pay the bills. If this were GW, the dems would say he was showboating and wanting votes, I think Obama comes off of vacation sees his ratings are in the crapper and comes up with this lopsided pseach full of me's and I's.

[worstinnews]

It is evident that Obama knows how to give a great speech, of cource most of what he says we can agree on, we want to protect the innocent, we want to avoid the slaughter of innocent lives, we can not allow a dictator and murderer to continue in power. O.k. we all agree on this, but what else is this idiot president saying, NOTHING! He is saying absolutely NOTHING! We will take a back seat, we will let the coalition take the lead, we will let NATO take command...is Barack Obama ignorant or what? No he is not, smart cookie this wise guy from Chicago. He is playing on the stupidity and ignorance of his base. All the left-wing, liberal, socialists that voted for him in 2006 are eating up this speech as he is the new savior of the world, the enlightened one. Barack Obama must be impeached, if he would have lived in the days of the Roman Empire he would have been stoned by now. I guarantee that Barack Obama will have the USA involved in more conflicts than any other president in history. It is in his Muslim nature to be at war, but Obama does not call anything war he calls it "a conflict", of course, this is what his heritage is used to. The entire middle east has been at war or in a conflict since the begining of time. They have all been fighting amongst themselves over the same piece of dirt, this will never end. The end of all time will be the only thing to eliminate the wars and fighting in the middle east. The Muslims fight the Jews, the Jews fight the Palestinians, the Palestenians fight the Muslims, the Pakistanis fight the Afghans, the Indians fight the Pakistanis, the Russians fight the Afghans, and the Muslims basically fight everyone in history, from the Spaniards all the way down to South Africa.

Finally, the USA is born 211 years ago and now we are a melting pot of Afghans, Europeans, Russians, Cubans, Irish, Jews, Palestenians, Indians, etc. etc. So, all these people in the USA are now pissed off all the fighting their ancestors have done throughout history, so our melting pot becomes the strongest military power in recent history and we are brought to bare all the consequences of all the world conflicts as we are the peace keepers, the humanitarians, in the end most of these people, i.e. Muslims, Pakistanis, Indians, Afghans, they don't care about the U.S., they just care about getting the free food, the free aid and the free weapons to continue fighting in the oversize sand box called the middle east!

[Nlightn1]

You make good points, and my BS meter was definitely jumping as well during that speech, but you go a little too far and lose credibility when you start talking about it's in his Muslim nature to be at war and this is what his "heritage is used to" etc. That's just ignorant.

To me, the president has proved to be another political pawn and a clown, but no more of a clown that Bush and Reagan before him. Why should he be impeached when they weren't?

As far as the "nature" of the Middle Eastern countries fighting each other all the time, Well...I would think you know enough not to dismiss the role of Western nations in those fights, as they have a great ability to sit quietly in the background and stir up the pot in a lot of those conflicts--just as they have done in Libya.

And don't fool yourself. The US has NEVER and does NOT go into any of these situations as "peacekeepers." They go in as "opportunists" looking to benefit. Obama said in the speech that the 33 billion dollars that they seized from Ghadafi will go to the "people" to rebuild Libya. Oh really? How? Most likely the same way as Cheney and Haliburton received money. They will give it to rich billionaires from the U.S. who want to rebuild and keep peace in Libya. Yeah right.

Again, Obama has revealed his true colors and he is no better than G.W. Bush, BUT he is no worse either.

[sjc_1]

I do not recall them dissecting Bush's speeches, maybe it was all the slurring of words that threw them off.

[JV1970]

This is new! CBS is actually fact checking Obama! Will wonders never cease! Usually they just accept whatever he says as law and gospel and crucify anyone who dares disagree with him!

[pelican1965]

The 8 years Obama mentioned we have been in Iraq has not been to accomplish changing the Head of the government but establishing a government. He seems to think the only thing needed is to remove Quaddahi. The problems in the middle east is not just the dictators. It is getting the people to stop fighting with each other. He (Obama) may well see 8 years or more of fighting in Lybia, Bahrain, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere.