By Patricia Wilson-Smith
I love it when I get responses to anything that’s posted on this website; it gives us an opportunity as an organization to share our views, sometimes through debate and discussion. That happened this morning, and I’d like to share it with you.
“BarbBF’, left a comment on a recent post regarding “President Obama’s 50 Greatest Accomplishments”, which in my opinion is a model example of the kind of thinking that will endanger his re-election if we allow it to go on. This is what BarbBF had to say:
June 9, 2012 at 8:58 am (Edit)
10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi: In March 2011,n October 20, 2011.(SNIP)No American lives were lost.
Yes..we should all rejoice that Obama supported NATO’s illegal invasion of Libya w/US taxpayer’s $$$$. All Blacks should be happy that a reported 30,000 Black Libyans are among the dead of the 50,000 Libya women, men and children incinerated by the predatory drones supplied to NATO by the US. We should be delighted that the “ethnic cleansing” of Black Libyans is still continuing. I am personally happy that of all the members the Congressional Black Caucus, only Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has spoken out against this massacre of these thousands of civilians, and BlackWomenForObama are proud of Obama’s accomplishments in Libya.
Thanks for your passionate comment. I’m sure you know that the problem of ethnic cleansing in Libya pre-dates even the civil war that eventually culminated in the events of last year. I too am happy that Jesse Jackson Jr. is pushing for an inquiry into the problem, but it’s two separate questions.
I’m sure you also know that President Obama did not make the decision to go into Libya – the UN Security Council did. He had to decide whether or not to commit American lives to the cause, or use means that would deliver the same end. Faced with that decision, I would expect any President, black, white or magenta to choose protecting American lives whenever possible, which is the crux of what’s stated in the accomplishment.
None of this diminishes the fact that lives were lost in the drone strikes; I can’t and won’t debate you on the merits of escalated attacks to end ongoing bloodshed, because it’s all tragic. But it’s incorrect for you to lay the blame for that bloodshed at the feet of President Obama, especially considering that he had to make the decision in the context of two long-running wars and a military that is already over-taxed because of decisions made by his predecessors. THEY are the ones we should be fighting; if Progressives continue to splinter and pick apart every decision the President has made, we’re going to end up with an administration that in the name of stabilizing oil prices, would have sent in every soldier available, and kept us there for years just because of their lust for war. I choose the President’s approach.
Thanks for your comment.
What are your thoughts? Can President Obama be blamed for the level of bloodshed and his handling of Libya? If you ask me, if left to a GOP President, we’d have gone in without a resolution as soon as oil hit $120 a barrel, and we’d still be there. Weigh-in.