As I've stated previously, I didn't clearly understand the issues on why President Obama would interfere in Libya's civil war. But I've been reading and informing myself, and I think I have a better grasp of the complexities of what is happening in Libya and with its dictator, Col. Ghadafy.
Go to this link to read his thoughtful analysis.
I thought the best response to the article was from the person [KT of NYC] who left this comment:
"Obama obtained a U.N. resolution mandating a 'no fly' zone prior to sending the US Air Force to Libya. That took maneuvering, including getting the Arab League on board. With the Arab League on board, Obama protected the US from a diplomatic crisis in the Mideast and further isolated Gadhaffi.
With the French and British involved, he made sure that the bombings did not look like, and were not, a US-led operation. All in three and a half weeks. This is dithering? This is statesmanship. Moreover, while Obama did not obtain Senate approval for our participation in the no-fly effort, I simply do not believe that the Chairs of the Senate Foreign Relation and Senate Intelligence Committee, as well as Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, were not briefed re what was happening.
It's the Senate, not the House, decides when we use military force in foreign nations. Hence, Boehner's objections are ridiculous; nobody asked him, because nobody had to ask him.
Obama did a good, quiet, safe job. He averted a massacre. People are going to recognize that his is the steady hand and careful, intelligent mind.
Finally -- all that the Republicans have running against him are a bunch of wafflers or wackos. The President is betting on the American people to hear the truth above the hype. I think that they will."
I've been trying to research if the highlighted red text is correct. Anyone out there an expert?
I've read up on the War Powers Resolution, but I can't find anything that validates what is highlighted above.