Obama, Libya and White House Communications

I supported the war in Afghanistan when we began it soon after the attacks on our country by Al Queda September 11, 2001.I believe that our country was justified in taking action to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya to protect the people of Libya.

Problem is that in the real world of politics, even the brightest among us seem to not be able to understand intentionally or just because they can't the differentiate between the President declaring it is the policy of this Nation that we want Colonel Qaddafi removed from power and the actions taken to enforce a no-fly zone. While the distinction seems fairly self-evident to me, even Keith Olbermann has expressed confusion.

But this brings me back to a subject that I am continually frustrated with since Barack Obama was elected President. There is a portion of the Democratic Party that seems hell bent on being pissed off at him. Often it seems clear to me they are just as disingenuous about the facts as the Republican Party in their efforts to attack him. Is it really that hard to understand the difference between attacks on a country in which we are targeting people and attacks in which we are targeting air defense munitions? Or, do they really not understand that it can be the policy of the country that we want Qaddafi removed without the actions to enforce the no-fly zone having the goal of removal?

For me to believe they truly don't understand these points calls me to doubt the collective intelligence of the far left of this country. While these are fine points for citizens who are otherwise distracted by their daily lives, that doesn't seem to be an adequate excuse for the so-called "professional left."

Since I don't doubt the intelligence of the left, I am left believing it is simply cynical politics from them as they wage political war for the hearts and minds of American citizens. That I'm afraid isn't a much better excuse than ignorance.

At the same time, the White House has to continually be engaged in public relations. Over the last 4-5 days they have made it far too easy for demagogues on the left and right to make it sound like the White House doesn't have a plan here.

I'm totally in support of the actual plan. And, the doctrine seems fairly obvious to me. When a dictatorial leader of a country is killing its citizens randomly and we can get the support of the United Nations to take actions militarily that will protect the citizens threatened by that dictator, and we can do so relatively safely, then we will indeed take such action. This is what happened in Libya. It did not happen in Egypt. And, it did not happen in Bahrain. Given that we cannot afford to unilaterally be the world's policeman this makes sense.

I don't know why this doctrine is hard for pundits on the left and right to discern from the actions of the Obama Administration but apparently these folks need President Obama to draw them a picture. And, since it is my belief that is incumbent upon a President to communicate his message on issues such a war and peace as clear as day, it has been a mistake for the President not to draw the picture.

It is apparently not enough that the Arab League supports the action, that those fighting the Qaddafi regime seem genuinely thankful for the actions we have taken, and not even that it is pretty clear our intervention prevented significant slaughter of citizens in Benghazi. President Obama needs to draw the picture not only for those to slow to figure out some rather obvious distinctions but so that those who clearly want him to fail on both the left and right cannot play on the minds of those who don't have the time or passion to know better.