The president of the United States, Barack Obama, deserves the benefit of the doubt and our support in his decision to use military force in Libya.
After 10 years in Afghanistan, eight years in Iraq, Americans, I think many of us have war fatigue. I think we all deserve clarity on this issue.
However, it's important to note, President Obama explained this won't be a long-term operation.
Matter of days, not a matter of weeks. Not even months.
But the majority of Americans don't want any part of a third war in a Muslim country.
The president's base is angry because we're firing millions of dollars of missiles at Libya instead of investing in America's infrastructure.
On the other side -- the Republicans are hammering the president not because he is not invading the entire Middle East, but because he's not doing it the way they would want to do it.
President Obama has decided on a more focused, realistic approach. He's trying to give the rebels, those who want democracy, a fighting chance at just that and trying to stop Gaddafi -- this is the human thing to do -- from slaughtering his own people.
Please take note that since we started this mission, Gaddafi hasn't been killing civilians, his own people. Does the president get credit for that? Does the coalition get credit for that?
This president, President Obama, has made his choice. And it is his leadership. He inherited Iraq. He inherited Afghanistan. And now, he has made a decision to invade Libya.
As a country, we really don't have much of a stomach for this right now and a lot of us are torn because of all of our needs here at home.
But remember -- and this needs to be pointed out -- there have been no lies told, no fear games played on the American people by President Obama and his administration.
I find it very interesting how conservatives are just picking away at President Obama. But the Republican Party -- the party that steamrolled America into two wars -- has suddenly discovered a barrage of reasons to oppose a Democratic president's military action.
Why?
Because he didn't do it their way? He didn't go far enough? He actually had a coalition?
I'm with the president on this one, and I think if it is defined the way he says it is -- limited in scope -- this actually could be a situation where we don't hear from Gaddafi for a long, long time.
So, what I think is going to happen is that we're going to have a Libya with Gaddafi. He might survive this. And then we're going to have a country with rebels who want democracy. This is all about democracy.
This is all about people in Libya wanting the simplicity of freedom.
I'm with the president on this one. As I said, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
It's your call, Mr. President. This is one American who's with you.
Follow Ed Schultz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@wegoted
Gadhafi is no boy scout, a terrorist to be sure, but no threat to us or any other country. He gave up his nukes when Bush invaded Iraq. The 'rebels' are tied to al Qaeda, even worse than Gadhafi. Ed is way off on this one and wears the hypocrite label proudly.
*Excellent article about the War Party of the United States and the hypocricy of so-called liberals.
http://www.infowars.com/liberals-willing-to-trade-blood-and-treasure-for-oil-company-profits-under-obama/
Well since THAT situation(war) is taken care of it's time to move on and take care of the next situation. Mission (soon to be) accomplished.
Period.
Oh, and mindlessly partisan. Musn't forget that.
Remember when he was on his public option campaign, he said he won't support a bill without one . . . but now he sure supports the HC bill.
Your heart's in the right place, but you don't think things through before speaking or (in this case) writing.
The point of the attack on Libya is regime change. Obama is opportunistically taking advantage of the revolutionary fervor that is sweeping the ME to remove an unfriendly dictator. He is cynically selling this strategy as a "humanitarian intervention" and you bought it.
Ask yourself: if this was a humanitarian intervention, why is Obama not intervening in Bahrain where peaceful, UNARMED, pro-democracy protestors are killed and hauled away, apparently with the help of the Saudi secret police? Why has he not intervened in Yemen? Why has he not intervened in the Ivory Coast as Gbagbo has lead the country into a bloody civil war (killing his own citizens) and acting against a UNSC resolution?
And i love how no one is addressing the Egypt situation. With this new 'pro-democracy' gov't in the interim after ousting Mubarak, they have already outlawed protesting and they just posponed elections from this year to next summer (2012). Sounds like they are open to debate lol.
Those are the two options, and to my way of thinking neither look especially appealing to Obama. This is probably the dumbest move I've seen him make during his presidency, and the "liberals" who are supporting him now are going to be forced to eat a lot of crow soon.