There, I agree, but unlikely at least on paper, but off the record, such an operation as "likely"

His reasoning is fairly sound but it feels contrived from polling data rather than what led him to the decision in the first place. Why else did he not explain this to the public much sooner?

That's not to say I agree with him, either.

Maybe, depending on the situation as such, not sure what that leads to and what impact the whole mess,but of course he would have acted earlier

Still trying to get the story straight, most likely. The Democratic politburo knew the Republicans would jump all over this for a lot of reasons. The talking heads at Fox have been relentlessly pounding every possible thing they can find about this all night: "Why is he taking us to war?", "Remember what he said about Bush?", "Why aren't we leading the coalition anymore?", "What happens afterwards?", "What happens now?", "Why aren't we in Syria?", "Why aren't we everywhere else?", "This is unconstitutional!", and about fifty other points.

Pure speculation on my part, but I think Obama wanted to go in right from the start and make it a good operation, likely in part so the Dems could have a military operation they could point to and say "That's how you do it!". As a political move, that would work out well for them since Republicans are the acknowledged "war" party. Well, nowadays anyway. I also say this because contrary to what he said in his speech, Obama did not make the decision to go in as soon as it became clear Benghazi was in danger. All this stuff, including many of the coalition missives, got in the works when the rebels were still winning.

Not that I care. Presumably, we helped save Benghazi and a lot of other people as well so that's good enough for me, might as well since we're there anyway. Personally, I'd have said let Europe do it if they care so much. They don't need our help with Qadaffi's joke of an army. But then again this isn't the non-interventionist country with no allies or enemies that I'd like it to be.

Kinda feel the same way you do. If you watch Regan's address to the nation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13xx1J5FdNE you'll notice he made the announcement right after the bombs dropped. I would much rather hear about it the night it happened, rather than wait for the polls and take time to develop a PR speech. I think the fact that the election is right around the corner that they decided to wait and see how the public felt about this.

Turning over command is nothing more than a political move, and to pacify other Muslim countries in the area. Last thing we need is to have everyone in the middle east think we're trigger happy for Muslim countries, but the reality is we are. In the name of "Protecting American Interests" [SUV Fuel] we bomb the living **** out of another oil producing country. Kinda hard to hide our "interests".

In his speech he said it isn't out place to police the world. I agree. But I still have a problem with his statements about basic humanity, that we had to act (as a country) because so many people could be harmed. Yet we turned a blind eye to the events in Rwanda (I hate to keep harping on that but...) where 800,000 people were killed in three months. Then we pull the trigger quickly when it suits "out interest" to protect a few thousand. So how many people have to die before we intervene in the name of humanity?

The few billion we [the UN coalition] just committed to spending by bombing the shiznit out of someone could have bought a whole bunch of food and clean water for people in starving nations, in the name of humanity.

Sorry for the rant, but I just think it's time all of us, everyone in developed countries, pull our heads out of our asses, quit fighting and finally decide to help each other in the name of humanity and really mean it.

I read President Obama's transcript today.

While he may have made a good argument for the need for military action to enforce the no fly zone as well as to "protect" the Libyan citizens,

In my opinion, he failed to make the argument that there is a need for United States military to participate.

This is something I think we need to stay out of. Let the regional powers over there handle it.

I often get the impression that the United States is too eager to go some place and kill people. Perhaps this is part of the military industrial complex attitude. Dunno.

In other words, a neutral speech!

Is There an Obama Doctrine?
 

President Obama, in his speech Monday evening on the American military role in Libya, said that the United States had a responsibility to intervene in foreign conflicts "when our interests and values are at stake."

Whether they agreed with the president or not, many analysts were quick to see the outlines of an Obama doctrine -- a grand strategy for American involvement in wars abroad. Did the president articulate such a blueprint? If so, what is it and what are the long-term risks and implications?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...ma-doctrine?hp

Note: Updated March 29, 2011 11:32 PM

Obviously very little. It will come back to haunt Obama.

After all he said about GWB how can anyone support this option?

But surely,some

I've said this before, but despite assurances to the contrary, the 'Obama doctrine' is little more than a continuance of the 'Bush doctrine'; so much so that it might as well be a third term of Bush 43.

Quite possible.

I think so. And as a continuation, the only thing I see different is the role reversal. In 2002/03/04, the Right called our actions laudable and patriotic, while the Left characterized them as being an abuse of power. Now, it is the Right screaming about abuse of power while the Left drones on about nobility in patiotism. I suppose it all comes down to what team you root for. Personally, I think both actions were and are bad news for the United States; a belief that I find to be validated by current events.