There’s nothing like having a clear mission statement on the Libyan bombing: we’re bombing but we aren’t doing it for regime change. In other words, we’re totally opposed to Qaddafi continuing as “leader” of that nation, but our bombing is not intended to remove him from power.
In what universe does that make sense?
I freely admit that he should be removed from power. In the past, he has been the primary supporter of terrorism. Reagan called him a barbarian—actually, a “flaky” barbarian. And he bombed Libya, too, but it was a direct response to an act of terrorism that took the lives of American soldiers. He had the authority to act in that case. He also didn’t mince words about the intent of the bombing; it was to take Qaddafi out. He almost succeeded.
What is our goal this time? What are we trying to stop?
I was informed by some serious former students that because we are part of the UN, we have to take part in this, and that our obligations via that organization supersede, in effect, our own Constitution. Well, if that’s the case, it’s time to separate ourselves from that organization. We should never subordinate our Constitution to anything the UN says.
Most of the world was waiting to see what President Obama was going to do. They waited … and waited … and … well, you get the idea. Although my primary objection to his being in the highest office in the land is his ideology, there’s also a case to be made [and some of us tried hard to make it in 2008] that he really had no experience in an executive capacity. He spent most of his time in the Illinois Senate voting “present.” He then spent most of his time as a U.S. senator running for president. This on-the-job training is hard on all of us.