SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMA ON THE RIGHT DECISION IN LIBYA
President Obama, albeit with some delay, has made the right decision in using the American military to enforce a no fly zone to protect the innocent freedom fighters in Libya.
The decision in some respects was a difficult one: there are the political considerations at home, the arguments over the constitutional power of the President to commit troops, the prospect of yet a third military action ongoing, and the monetary and human costs of the conflict.
But in the end the decision for the President is a no brainer. The president had no choice.
1. Democracy is on the move in the middle east.
2. Without international intervention, madman Gaddafi would have surely squashed the democratic movement.
3. The end of the movement in Libya would have been a severe blow to the fledgling movement toward the democracy throughout the middle east.
4. America's credibility would have been severely damaged and its role as leader of the free world would be crippled: We cannot claim to be on the side of freedom and democracy only when its in our interests do so.
On the other side there is hope for a brighter day in the Middle East. If the democratic movement continues and if America is seen as being on the right side of the movement, the United States will reap huge military and strategic benefits in the long run which will in turn produce huge savings on military expenditures down the road as Democratic regimes in recognition of the rights of man, liberty and tolerance will find a way to be a peace with their neighbors even those of a different creed.
One might ask the question: how likely is this scenario.
We know that liberty and freedom is a most intoxicating philosophy. America, itself, was born from such circumstances of intoxication. The President's action, albeit late, may allow America to share some day sooner than we might have imagined some of that intoxication with democratic friends in the middle east.
President Obama made the right decision.
Some have cited constitutional considerations suggesting that the president by not directly engaging the Congress violated the literal terms of the constitution. The fallacy of that argument is that the extent of the President;s war powers despite the constitutional provision and U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the issue is anything but clear.
Those liberals opposing the President on the war powers issue and seeking a literal interpretation of the constitutions war powers clause should ask themselves if they would also choose such an interpretation of other constitutional provisions such the interstate commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment.
Republicans who in most cases supported George W. Bush and his so called Bush doctrine which is completely at odds with the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States since 1945 should put the nation' s interest above their desire to attack the President politically.
In the end, the President not only made the right decision but showed the kind of guts in putting the nation's broader interests ahead of politics that could make a president less a political hack and more of a world statesman.
We are proud of the President and lend our full support.

The idea has alternative. A little mystery novel!!
Posted by: Nike Shox | 05/18/2011 at 03:44 AM
Thank you share, the article will make people good progress soon, I will share my article to
you, because only together can share the progress
Posted by: oakley sunglasses | 07/04/2011 at 03:09 AM