by Kathleen McKinley | March 30, 2011 9:12 am

What a strange journey this has been in Libya. We had a window of opportunity to topple Gadhafi. Most Americans supported it. People were asking why we didn’t enforce a no fly zone, or at least do something. But Obama was determined that this not be American driven. He wanted the U.N. on board. That’s his worldview. I get it. But we all know that nothing of any substance can be done without us. But Obama went with the team player theme, and weeks later we enacted the no fly zone. Late is better than never I suppose. But one gets the feeling if we had gone in there when Gadhafi was off his guard, we might have ended this pretty quickly.

It’s interesting that Obama was so interested in getting the U.N.’s approval, but not interested at all in getting the approval of the American Congress.

Sen. Ron Paul:

In 2007, then-candidate Obama said that “The President does not have 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.”

I agree with candidate Obama. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to heed his own advice. He has ignored our constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval

In the President’s speech, Obama said that we can’t intervene in every bloody conflict, but that shouldn’t be an excuse never to act. True enough. But as much as the left hated Pres. Bush for going into Iraq, at least he got congressional approval to do so. I would think that an American President would be more interested in that than in what the U.N. thinks. But that is Obama.

It’s clear that this is civil war in Libya. But I do disagree with Ron Paul that we have no interest there. Taking down a brutal dictator, and setting people free in the Middle East is good for us and for the region.

Lucky for us, and the world, Gadhafi had no nuclear weapons. Why didn’t he?Because he gave up his nuclear weapons program in 2004, turning over uranium enriching centrifuges and warhead designs. After what he had seen what Bush did to Saddam Hussein, I’m sure he felt that would be his fate as well if he didn’t.

But what now? Obama wants Gadhafi out of power, but he doesn’t want the to do it militarily above what has already been done with no fly zone. I hope this happens for the Libyan people’s sake, but when I look at the news and see the “Rebels,” I see a ragtag group of men that have no training, no plan, and no support. I don’t see how they topple Gadhafi on their own with little help from us.

Pres. Obama said in his speech that he would flatly refuse to do what we did in Iraq, but no one is suggesting we do that, so it seemed to be a moot point to me. The only thing people are suggesting is that we provide the rebels with training, arms, and air support. Pres. Obama seemed to want to pretend that handing over the mission to NATO wouldn’t involve us as much. The truth is that in doing so, we are handing the mission over from one American military leader to another American military leader, James Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander-Europe. Who do you think leads NATO militarily? We do, of course.

Pres. Obama was between a rock and a hard place on this. It’s true. He chose a mushy middle approach. It could work. I hope and pray it does. But I’m not feeling hopeful. Things don’t seem to be looking good for the rebels[1].

The simple truth is when you take military action you should go in to win. Pres. Obama has said he wants Gadhafi gone, but he also says he’s not willing to do anything more to see that accomplished. If that’s the case, then we should pull out completely. We either go in to win, our we stop putting ourselves in this conflict at all.

My feeling is that commanders will talk Obama into using more force. We’ll see how it goes.

The Washington Post’s fact checker [2]gave a first time award of an upside down Pinocchio, because Obama’s stances have been more like flip flops than lies.

  1. Things don’t seem to be looking good for the rebels:
  2. The Washington Post’s fact checker :

Source URL: