Posted by
Mike on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 6:54:50 PM
http://www.westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The Obama war critics have yet to explain why it is so wrong for Obama
to try to soften up Ghadafi a little bit militarily while protecting
innocent Libyan civilians. Do they believe that Obama should have
directed Ambassador Rice to vote against or to have abstained on the UN
resolution condemning Ghadafi for his brutal response to the
demonstrations, and imposing a no-fly zone over Libya? That would have
been an abandonment of America's leadership role in safeguarding
democracy. Once having obtained the UN resolution for a no-fly zone, do
they believe Obama should have rushed to Congress to obtain
authorization for war against Libya? This would have committed America
to another long, drawn out military engagement half way around the
world. It is precisely because Obama does not want war that he did not
go to Congress asking for a war declaration. Protecting civilians can
be accomplished without getting us into a full scale war. Are they
upset because Obama did not immediately attack Libya and overthrow the
Ghadafi regime without a UN guarantee so that fewer Libyans would have
been killed? Why would they want this even though America has no dog in
this fight? Or is this just another foolish attempt by those who hate
America to destabilize our country from within?