Kaddafi Has To Go

I don't get it.  Libya's Muammar Kaddafi was a leading sponsor of international terror in the eighties and then bought off people for their silence.  He made billions off Libya's resources while his people stayed poor and isolated.   He brought in mercenaries to kill his own people when the protests in the Arab world came to his doorstep.  There is no evidence that the rebels are linked to al-Qaeda or any Muslim radical groups.  These revolutionary movements in Libya and elsewhere have been largely peaceful and are inspired by a hope for democratic freedom.   We saw the obvious outpouring of joy in rebel-controlled Benghazi when freedom from a tyrant seemed at hand, and how terrified these same people were when the tide turned against them.    From the Arab League, the UN and much of Europe, there was backing to use "all necessary means" to defend these people from a discredited dictator.   What do we hear?   Fox News, which would have led the charge if this happened under George W. Bush, consistently paints a picture of doom and asks why President Obama is taking his family to visit South America.   He's not hiding in the Amazon.   Republicans, who never blinked when authorizing a trillion dollars for Afghanistan and Iraq, now question the cost of enforcing a no-fly zone.   Democrats like Dennis Kucinich call Obama's part in offensive actions against Libya without Congressional authorization "impeachable."   The first missiles were fired from a French air force jet only days ago.   Give things a chance.  To just sit by as Kaddafi mercilessly puts down a truly democratic movement would tell any oppressor that Egypt's and Tunisia's ousted leaders were too lenient.   And yes, the Libyan civil war has already disrupted oil prices, and we still need stability.   These actions by the UN and NATO coalition are warranted.   We need to be on the side of these democratic movements without leading them.