[somawaima]

Um, do you all realize this is nothing new (go ahead and fire up your Google machine and see what you find)? The question isn’t about al-Qaeda in Libya. They were there before the uprising. They are in a lot of places. We’ll have to see how this plays out from here. In my opinion, we’ll keep a close eye on the place before actually removing our drones. You all cannot deny that we’ve really hurt al-Qaeda under the current administration – even more that the whole Bush presidency. They can’t move money or personnel, their leadership is fractured, and they no longer have safe havens in Germany, Pakistan, and Yemen – among other places. We’ll see how this develops. After all, did the Iraqis great us as liberators and sign over oil leases?

History lesson – Qaddafy was a totalitarian dictator that directed terrorist attacks, gave human rights criminals sanctuary, and pursued WMDs. The Bush administration cozied up to him, the current administration took him out. I doubt he could be replaced by worse, the question is how much better will the next leader be?

There’s plenty to fault the president for. Like, his escalation in military conflict, or his cherry picking of popular uprising to support. The question should really be, if the administration is concerned human rights, why didn’t they support the Bahrain effort? What, are Shia too scary? What about Syria? Their skulls are being cracked like war vets in Oakland. What’s the administration’s position there?

Look – don’t be a naysayer just to say no. This al-Qaeda thing is nothing new, and it’s actually one of the fronts in which the president has shown a lot of leadership and success. Democracy is a messy business – at home and abroad.