Now that the Nobel Peace Prize winning president has started his first pre-emptive strike or "kinetic military action," I'd like to pose a few questions. What is the goal in this rush to war? Is it regime change? But regime change is not within the scope of the UN resolution. If it is humanitarian, then why here and not Sudan or Yemen? Will you do the same if unrest erupts in Saudi Arabia and the royal family cracks down? Why was congress not consulted or congressional authorization sought? Is that not necessary because the French OK'd the operation? If Gadaffi is taken down, is there a post-Gadaffi plan or have we not learned anything from Iraq? Don't we risk creating chaos and a vacuum that will be a magnet for Al Qaeda? If Gadaffi stays, aren't we risking more retributive terrorist attacks? So aren't we making America less safe no matter what- if he stays (attacks from Gadaffi who has done it before) or if he goes (safe stays (safe haven for Al Qaeda). When Saddam brutalized his own people, Mr. Obama said that wasn't sufficient cause to use military power because there was no imminent threat. Where is the imminent threat from Libya? Aren't you diverting precious and stretched military resources from two fronts that are already tired? Are you worried that your Muslim outreach program will be upset now that you have pre-emptively attacked another Muslim country that posed no imminent threat to the U.S.? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Finally, did you get around to sending a thank you note to cowboy President Bush for inducing Libya to give up its nuclear program? Bet you're glad that happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment