Ed.
The self called liberals seem as bad as the TPers in not being able to give Obama credit for what I see as a brilliantly successful foreign policy in very hard times. Later this week I will post a video of Dennis Kucinich’ strange speech at Hempfest. Kucinich, as usual, gave a stirring and doctinaire speech in support of “progressive” views, amazingly leaving out any reflection non the Libuan people’s revolt and the role we, under Obama, have played.
Goldy’s response, I fear, is muted by the Kucinich crowd:
WHAT WOULD DENNIS DO?
I am currently transfixed by Al Jazeera’s live stream from Tripoli, where jubilant opposition forces are in the process of taking control of the Libyan capital. Compared to the chaos being broadcast—young, non-uniformed men, some shooting AK-47s in the air, others busily texting or capturing events on their cell phones—the mostly peaceful revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia seemed almost choreographed by comparison.
According to various reports, three of Muammar Gaddafi’s sons have been captured, and government troops have surrendered in several key locations, but of course it’s impossible to confirm anything other than what the cameras show: rebels celebrating their hard-won freedom in the streets of Tripoli.
So here’s a question: Assuming Gaddafi has fallen to a popular rebellion, and Libya is now in the hands of presumable democratic (whatever that means in the region) opposition forces… were the NATO air strikes justified? Morally and financially? Was it worth the cost in both dollars and “collateral damage” to first protect the nascent rebellion, and then to support its offensive?
President Obama has been criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike for our military intervention in Libya, but compared to Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Gaddafi’s ouster appears to have come relatively fast and relatively cheap in both blood and treasure. So does Obama deserve a little praise for his policy, or was this always none of our business?