Last night, Ed talked about the contradictory Republican criticisms of Obama's action in Libya:
In an op-ed for HuffPo today, Ed says to give Obama "the benefit of the doubt" when it comes to invading Libya.
Here's Ed's message:
The president of the United States, Barack Obama, deserves the benefit of the doubt and our support in his decision to use military force in Libya.
After 10 years in Afghanistan, eight years in Iraq, Americans, I think many of us have war fatigue. I think we all deserve clarity on this issue.
However, it's important to note, President Obama explained this won't be a long-term operation.
Matter of days, not a matter of weeks. Not even months.
But the majority of Americans don't want any part of a third war in a Muslim country.
The president's base is angry because we're firing millions of dollars of missiles at Libya instead of investing in America's infrastructure.
On the other side -- the Republicans are hammering the president not because he is not invading the entire Middle East, but because he's not doing it the way they would want to do it.
President Obama has decided on a more focused, realistic approach. He's trying to give the rebels, those who want democracy, a fighting chance at just that and trying to stop Gaddafi -- this is the human thing to do -- from slaughtering his own people.
Please take note that since we started this mission, Gaddafi hasn't been killing civilians, his own people. Does the president get credit for that? Does the coalition get credit for that?
This president, President Obama, has made his choice. And it is his leadership. He inherited Iraq. He inherited Afghanistan. And now, he has made a decision to invade Libya.
As a country, we really don't have much of a stomach for this right now and a lot of us are torn because of all of our needs here at home.
But remember -- and this needs to be pointed out -- there have been no lies told, no fear games played on the American people by President Obama and his administration.
I find it very interesting how conservatives are just picking away at President Obama. But the Republican Party -- the party that steamrolled America into two wars -- has suddenly discovered a barrage of reasons to oppose a Democratic president's military action.
Because he didn't do it their way? He didn't go far enough? He actually had a coalition?
I'm with the president on this one, and I think if it is defined the way he says it is -- limited in scope -- this actually could be a situation where we don't hear from Gaddafi for a long, long time.
So, what I think is going to happen is that we're going to have a Libya with Gaddafi. He might survive this. And then we're going to have a country with rebels who want democracy. This is all about democracy.
This is all about people in Libya wanting the simplicity of freedom.
I'm with the president on this one. As I said, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
It's your call, Mr. President. This is one American who's with you.