This is what the man said in March of 2011:
Transcript:
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Washington D.C.
March 26, 2011
Last week, when I ordered our armed forces to help protect the Libyan people from the brutality of Moammar Qaddafi, I pledged to keep the American people fully informed. Since then, I’ve spoken about the limited scope and specific purpose of this mission. Today, I can report that thanks to our brave men and women in uniform, we’ve made important progress.
As Commander in Chief, I face no greater decision than sending our military men and women into harm’s way. And the United States should not—and cannot—intervene every time there’s a crisis somewhere in the world.
But I firmly believe that when innocent people are being brutalized; when someone like Qaddafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region; and when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives—then it’s in our national interest to act. And it’s our responsibility. This is one of those times.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Side note:
When you see the barbaric behavior of Qaddafi to killing peaceful demonstrators indiscriminately and when more than 8,000 of them dead before the UN intervention, what kind of "moral math" can justify to seat on the side line and watch genocide continue until we call it for what it is? Should we be waiting 100 days like in Rwanda or three years and 200,000 lives later like in Bosnia or may be we should just watch 100,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000 die while some continue to politicize the intervention.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Our military mission in Libya is clear and focused. Along with our allies and partners, we’re enforcing the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We’re protecting the Libyan people from Qaddafi’s forces. And we’ve put in place a no fly zone and other measures to prevent further atrocities.
We’re succeeding in our mission. We’ve taken out Libya’s air defenses. Qaddafi’s forces are no longer advancing across Libya. In places like Benghazi, a city of some 700,000 that Qaddafi threatened to show “no mercy,” his forces have been pushed back. So make no mistake, because we acted quickly, a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided and the lives of countless civilians—innocent men, women and children—have been saved.
As I pledged at the outset, the role of American forces has been limited. We are not putting any ground forces into Libya. Our military has provided unique capabilities at the beginning, but this is now a broad, international effort. Our allies and partners are enforcing the no fly zone over Libya and the arms embargo at sea. Key Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have committed aircraft. And as agreed this week, responsibility for this operation is being transferred from the United States to our NATO allies and partners.
This is how the international community should work—more nations, not just the United States, bearing the responsibility and cost of upholding peace and security.
This military effort is part of our larger strategy to support the Libyan people and hold the Qaddafi regime accountable. Together with the international community, we’re delivering urgent humanitarian assistance. We’re offering support to the Libyan opposition. We’ve frozen tens of billions of dollars of Qaddafi’s assets that can help meet the needs and aspirations of the Libyan people. And every day, the pressure on Qaddafi and his regime is increasing.
Our message is clear and unwavering. Qaddafi’s attacks against civilians must stop. His forces must pull back. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach those in need. Those responsible for violence must be held accountable. Moammar Qaddafi has lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to rule, and the aspirations of the Libyan people must be realized.
In recent days, we’ve heard the voices of Libyans expressing their gratitude for this mission. “You saved our lives,” said one Libyan. Said another, “Today, there is hope.”
Every American can be proud of the lives we’ve saved in Libya and of the service of our men and women in uniform who once again have stood up for our interests and our ideals. And people in Libya and around the world are seeing that the United States of America stands with those who hope for a future where they can determine their own destiny.
Here is what a Libyan Americans group had to say about the United States intervention appreciating the US government and the International community, speaking for the people of Libya:
"We as Libyan Americans and Libyans are very appreciative of not just what the international community has done, but what the United States has done what other partners, Arab countries, as well as Europeans (have done)," the president of the American Libyan Council Fadel Lamen told reporters at the National Press Club.
The group showered President Obama with praise for his decision to involve the U.S. military in enforcing UN Resolution 1973, saying the president's decision saved lives.
"We strongly support President Obama’s stance on the Libya crisis," said Esam Omeish, director of the Libyan Emergency Task Force. "His actions have saved thousands of lives in Benghazi and elsewhere."
Omeish added that the Libyan American community is "eternally grateful for the timely and swift response and intervention of the international community."
Adopting resolution 1973, a measures to protect civilians under threat of attack by the Libyan Government, not only is the right thing to do, it was the humane thing to do by the United Nation. As Americans, our contribution to unite a coalition of International bodies to stop such inhumane treatment must be commended.
Here was a question asked by a kosack that is worth repeating... "as people rise up peacefully by the thousands to protest their long standing autocratic leaders in the Middle East we celebrate with them. Why stand idly by and let them by murdered."
No, President Obama did not crossed the line. No, President Obama did not stand idly and let Genocide be committed to the people of Libya as was the case in Rwanda under President Clinton.
As Tom Malinowski of the New Republic points out though, "Presidents get more credit for stopping atrocities after they begin than for preventing them before they get out of hand."
Mr. President, thank you for working with our allies to protect the Libyan people from Qaddafi’s forces. You have contributed to saving many lives that would have been lost today. You actions and leadership is commendable and and for that many of us who have give you our gratitude.
To those who are think the intervention in Libya is unconstitutional, I will leave you with Jack Goldsmith of Slate who feels the intervention is not wise but from his article, War Power, The president's campaign against Libya is constitutional, he eloquently justifies why this bogus claim of unconstitutional narrative does not hold water.
Legal scholars disagree about the original meaning of the Constitution's conferral on Congress of the power "to declare war." Many contend it required Congress to formally approve all uses of U.S. military force abroad, save, as James Madison said at the Convention, in situations needed to "repel sudden attack." Others maintain the "declare war" clause provides more leeway, allowing the president to use force abroad as long as the force does not rise to the level of "war," whatever that means. Yet others argue that the framers meant simply to give Congress the authority to signal under international law a state of war; the real work in controlling presidential initiation of force, under this view, was Congress' control over appropriations and the size of the standing army. There are many more theories about the original understanding. Even if we could definitively resolve this debate, which we can't, it is unclear why original intent—which in practice rarely determines contemporary constitutional meaning—should control outcomes in the context of presidential war powers, a context that as much as any is marked by radically changed circumstances.
Compounding the problem of indeterminate constitutional language is the fact that the courts have never resolved the question about the scope of the president's power to use military force abroad without congressional authorization. Almost all litigation seeking to resolve whether a war was properly launched has been dismissed as a "political question" or because the plaintiff lacked standing. As a result, the constitutional issue has been worked out almost exclusively by practice between the political branches and not by the courts.
That practice confirms that the president, under his commander-in-chief and other executive powers, has very broad discretion to use U.S. military force in the absence of congressional authorization. Presidents have done this, in military actions large and small, over 100 times, since the beginning of the republic. The largest and most consequential unauthorized military action is the Korean War launched by President Truman in 1950. Another big conflict without congressional authorization—and, indeed, in the face of an overt congressional vote that declined to provide such authorization—was President Clinton's Kosovo intervention in 1999. Some less significant unilateral uses of military force in the past 30 years include Haiti (2004), Bosnia (1995), Haiti (1994), Somalia (1992), Panama (1989), Libya (1986), Lebanon (1982), and Iran (1980). The executive branch has issued public legal opinions explaining the constitutional basis for most of these actions. (Some are listed here.)
Read more
I will repeat it again, No, Obama Has NOT Crossed the Line on Libya.