OPINION:
After watching President Obama’s speech to the nation regarding the Libyan debacle, I couldn’t stand by without challenging his naivete and phony justification for involving our country in a third conflict, which he has refused to label a war (“Obama shuns Oval Office for Libya speech,” Web, Monday).
Mr. Obama’s statements about why he involved us in this third battle against a Muslim nation flies in the face of reasoning. As a country of laws, we don’t act on hearsay and supposition. Mr. Obama’s argument that we had to stop the possible murder of thousands of Libyans is contrary to how we enforce our laws. To put it into perspective, if my neighbor said he was going to run me over with his car, I would be arrested if I blew up his car to stop his threats because he didn’t commit the act. As abhorrent as this may seem, we don’t stop criminals from breaking the law; we can act only after the fact.
From my perspective, Mr. Obama is naive and has no conception as to how to lead, knowledge that comes only from experience. Trusting the rebels and supporting their plight because our allies have a vested interest could put us in a tight spot if the rebels are really wolves in sheep’s clothing.
As a former Marine and a Vietnam veteran on a 100 percent disability from that war, I experienced firsthand that the simple farmer in daylight was a deadly adversary at night. I think our Founding Fathers fell short when it came to drawing up rules for electing a president. What is needed is an amendment to the Constitution that has a specific set of qualifications so that “we the people” will never end up with another incompetent president.
GREGORY J. TOPLIFF
Warrenville, S.C.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.