Got so busy yesterday I forgot to post my response to Obama's speech. I thought it wasn't his best in terms of presentation. Maybe the audience—especially the front row, of mostly old white men and a lot of them in uniform—caused him to seem at times a little more defensive than usual.
But in terms of content, no matter what you think of his Libya strategy you have to admit it was more honest than I remember any president ever being about any military action our country has taken part in, at least in my lifetime.
He answered his critics, was blunt about the folly of the Iraq invasion and the lack of a quick response where massacres could have been prevented in other places, but also blunt about how the U.S. can't prevent all the tyrannical oppression and violence against civilians that occurs in the world.
I'm one of those who believe a horrible massacre has been avoided by the actions taken by Obama with the support of NATO and the Arab League and mandated by the U.N. Now there's an obvious quandary about how much support to give to the rebels in light of Qaddafi's superior artillery. I'd like to see a ceasefire and negotiations because that could stop any further deaths and violence.
But it seems in the areas Qaddafi controls, the violence and repression and against many civilians continues, so the justification is there for more support for the rebels until they are able to get Qaddafi out either by force or his support diminishing to the point of inevitable defeat.
It's not an easy situation to resolve in any ideal way, but then, most tough situations in life aren't resolved easily. But given the realities—and a lot about the Obama administration that I don't agree with or wish they'd do more the way I'd like to see things go—Obama is still handling the challenges he's had to face since taking office with much more honesty and intelligence than most presidents in my lifetime, and in many cases any of them, and that goes for this "military action" as well.