[Hoot Gibson]

I am agreeing with Hoot on this one! We should not be there, we should be out of Iraq, we should be out of Germany, Japan, Britian, and the list could continue (up to 90 countries). We can not nor should we be the world's police. Also, I do not wish for our government to hand out tax dollars to any country, other than to pay off our debt. I also think we should leave Isreal alone and Iran and the so called Palestian People, who were not a people until after Isreal was reformed in 1945. Let them all deal with each other. It would work itself out. If we get attacked, we show no mercy, period the end, forget rebuilding things, it is not our place. If someone attacked us twice after the first beating, drop the bomb...

You should know, I fully support our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. My objection to American involvement in Libya is based on the fact that I cannot see where our national interests will be served. This just seems like a political calculation on Obama's part. A war that he can call his own and a war that we can easily win. Since we deposed Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi has not posed much of a threat compared to several other world leaders.

If Obama is doing this for purely humanitarian reasons, then why has he not intervened in Darfur, where thousands have died and/or became rape victims?

If helping the rebels overthrow Gaddafi, then why did Obama not make that decision a few weeks ago when rebels seemed to have the upper hand? Why did Obama sit on his hands and wait for the UN to act while Gaddafi regrouped and went on a killing spree?

If we are able to turn the tide in what is a Libyan civil war, what makes us think that those who take over will be any improvement over Gaddafi? The most organized among the rebels are likely to be affiliated with Al Qaeda, so chances are the next Libyan leader would be as bad or even worse than Gaddafi.]

Finally, why is Obama on yet another vacation with his family, playing soccer in Brazil, instead of acting presidential during time of war?