President Obama to defend military involvement in Libya
June 15th, 2011
10:31 AM ET
4 years ago

President Obama to defend military involvement in Libya

(CNN) – President Obama is set to defend U.S. military involvement in Libya to Congress as soon as today, according to the White House.

Congressional sources are expecting a written report answering a number of questions the House of Representatives posed in a resolution passed with bipartisan support over a week ago, including inquiries about the president's goal in Libya, how he hopes to achieve that goal, why he has not sought congressional authorization for involving U.S. troops abroad and how much the conflict will ultimately cost.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Libya • President Obama
soundoff (14 Responses)
  1. gt

    how sad is it when one becomes president , how they can send our you men and women into conflicts that dont mean a thing to everyday americans lives... obma this is dead wrong....blood will be on your hands now.. why are we still in afganistan and iraq... heart breaking and disapointing from you...

    June 15, 2011 10:54 am at 10:54 am |
  2. Rudy NYC

    Our allies called for help, and we answered the call. Enough said. Our allies asked for a supportive role, and to provide lead support with technology that only we have. The President has already stated that the goal is to see the Khadaffi leave office.

    I guess some of you have forgotten about that terrorist; convicted in the Lockerbie bombing of the Pan Am flight, the one the supposedly with the terminal cancer case, the one who was released to back to Libya on humanitarian grounds, the same one who was welcomed home as a hero. Remember that guy?

    June 15, 2011 11:01 am at 11:01 am |
  3. Lost in Texas FOREVER

    since when have the war hawkish Republicans been so against any type of war? Oh I get it because OBAMA did it so they HAVE to be against it. And they are going against the "war" where so far NO American lives have been lost nor or there any boots on the ground. SO go figure.

    June 15, 2011 11:08 am at 11:08 am |
  4. New Age Independent

    Rudy, are you trying to say that we are launching massive strikes against Libya in order to kill the Lockerbie bomber? The terrorist that Obama authorized to release? I think that's a stretch.

    As far as our allies asking for help. Ok fine, I think we are looking for the justification in our actions.

    June 15, 2011 11:14 am at 11:14 am |
  5. john

    Libya, another Obama FAILURE
    Failure on the economy
    Failure on taxes
    Failure on home foreclosure
    Failure on a budget
    Failure on health care, what a disaster Obama care is
    Failure on price of gasoline
    Failure on price of food
    Failure on everything

    June 15, 2011 11:15 am at 11:15 am |
  6. The Elephant In The Room

    Tomahawk cruise missiles, made by General Dynamics, cost the government $1.5M each and DO NOT have pilots. They are the primary instrument of our "war".

    We fired about 350 of them [$500M] and have not lost an American pilots, seamen, marines or soldiers.

    Through the global respect he has restored to the office, the President actually convinced the Europeans + Canadians + Arabs to do the "heavy lifting" in the Libyan conflict.

    Kaddafhi`s people are defecting and the man is dodging 2,000 lb. bombs from NATO. He will either die or have the self-preserving sense to leave in exile. I`ll bet he`s gone in 3 months – by Labor Day

    For all those criticizing Obama on Libya – this is shaping up to be the QUICKEST, LEAST EXPENSIVE and LEAST DEADLY [to our military] instance where a despicable, murdering, tyrant has been removed from power.

    Pretty good for a community organizer, ehh?

    June 15, 2011 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  7. ric

    wow..all the libs who are anti war fanatics still find it in them to defend Obama's on and off war in Libya. Denial must be horrible to deal with and it must suck to know that all of you kool-aid dribnkers voted for a guy who ended up being a complete failure.

    June 15, 2011 11:24 am at 11:24 am |
  8. malabar

    At least dems cleared one thng up, they dont mind war at all really, it's all political. because none of them would have a problem had a Republican done what Obama did hahaha! careful there with ur rant, u just might prove my point :)

    June 15, 2011 11:31 am at 11:31 am |
  9. AZ DEM

    I will admit that the Libya decision is a tough one for me to decide what is right. On one hand I think anytime a dictator is killing his own people we should have enough decency to help if there is a way that we can. However I don't understand what makes Libya more of a national interest than many of the other genocides that have taken place in African nations especially. This is not an AMERICAN invasion of Libya it is the NATO forces working together to get Ghaddafi out. IF this isn't approved by the COngress have a vote on it so we can see where the WHOLE Congess stands and then we can move accordingly.

    June 15, 2011 11:37 am at 11:37 am |
  10. Bill from GA

    Probably easier to defend OUR part in the Libya action, than the British defending their support for w's war on Iraq around 2003.

    Many use this 'war' to attack our President, yet the US involvement is probably about right. We provide support for the Europeans, who have a major interest in Libya. Repugs call it 'leading from behind'; they're so slick. Witty even. They can't acknowledge that the US doesn't always have to lead; sometimes we SUPPORT our allies.

    June 15, 2011 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  11. dlsmit1

    @the elephant in the room. What dream world are you living in. We have been doing the "heavy lifting" so far it's our missiles that are being dropped on Libya not Europe's. Obama has done everything including begging Europe to take over but they won't-gee IMAGINE that. Also we don't know that this is necessarily a good thing, if the muslim brotherhood takes over we'll most likely end up regretting it.

    June 15, 2011 11:56 am at 11:56 am |
  12. Bill from GA

    A big difference in the 'war' in Libya and the others we are involved in is that we are supporting our allies, BUT ALSO supporting a revolution of the people. Like France did around 1776 (for you history-dead, that was OUR Revolution.)

    Big difference in that and our INVASION of Iraq, under w.

    June 15, 2011 11:59 am at 11:59 am |
  13. sammieb51

    As a Democrat, I defended the international community and Obama's initial response to this crisis. However, since NATO is letting the US do all the heavy lifting including most of the funding, we need to get the heck out of there. The mid-east is imploding, we need to get out now.

    June 15, 2011 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm |
  14. dlsmit1

    @Bill from GA, let's see Saddam murdered millions of people and it wasn't necessary to remove him from power per Obama. Ghadafi killed a couple thousand rebels and now all the sudden it's necessary to take him out per Obama. Hum anyone else see something wrong with that picture, 2000 people-a million people. dum dum dum dum dum dum dum-to the theme of jeopardy.

    June 15, 2011 12:03 pm at 12:03 pm |