I never said that someone somewhere shouldn't have done something in Libya. But that can be said for a lot of places. My concern (and others) is that Obama didn't properly make a case for the attacks. We are now invested in the outcome. Its not so much the attacks its what happens down the road. We attacked Libya once and then we got Pan Am. If Gaddafi is left in power and isolated like he was before, what might happen next time? The UN certainly isn't going to protect us from a new terrorist attack formulated by Gaddafi in Tripoli.
Like I said, I'm 100% positive our President has much more inside info on the situation than you, or I, and so you'd be opining here without really knowing fully what you're talking about.
We have a responsibility to the U.N., and people may not like that but it's a fact and imho, it probably keeps the World safer be that as it may.
I'm sure that he does. However, I don't see the national security threat from Libya pre-bombing. Whether or not Qaddafi remains in power there is enormous potential for a new national security threat. Obama liked to state that Iraq and Afghanistan were recruiting tools for terrorists. Another battlefield in a new Muslim nation is certainly adding to that list.
He said that before his top-grade security clearance.
I like to believe that there's intelligence so high in our Military that our actions in the M.E. are ALL strategic for a huge future purpose.