Sorry for the sarcasm, but given the responses of two other posters who agreed with your post I'm apparently not the only one who interpreted your remarks as more of a comment than a question.
For better or worse, the United States is the leader of the world. By extension, whoever the President is, whether he's a liberal or conservative, loved or hated, can have a HUGE influence on world events simple based on what he says. Obama could simply announce that he backed the Libyan rebels thereby bringing ENORMOUS pressure upon Khadafi, and it wouldn't have cost the United States one thin dime. Or Obama could have said, "Look, Khadafi sucks, but he has renounced his WMD program and is a lot less dangerous than before and he is therefore preferable to the rebels" and it would have had an ENORMOUS impact and not cost the US one thin dime. I'll concede that doing nothing, which has basically been the United States response re: Libya, might just be the best course of action...maybe we're hedging our bets. But I find it hard to believe that limp-wristed and tepid American responses have been the right course of action on nearly every global issue/crisis that Obama has faced...Libya, Egypt, Iran, now Bahrain, etc. And I find that given Obama's past history of voting "Present" instead of casting a vote, it is very possible/likely that our current foreign policy is a reflection of that same lack of conviction.
I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
PBO is "not sure what to do" because of his core principles that conflict with 'what the American President is supposed to do/stand for".
He was taught his whole life that people like "Daffy" are the good guys, what he should strive to emulate. A heroic anti-colonialist standing up to the evil exploiters/oppressors of the people. Now that the mask of Muammar is off and the world is seeing, again, the true "person", it isn't quiiiite what Barack wants to show he's really supported all these years.
So he was for Gaddafi before he was against him. Sounds par for the course (Pun intended). And now he can conveniently hide behind Sarkozy, Merkel, Hu Jintao, etc which may be a good thing overall, since Italy, France, China, Germany and Spain are the largest buyers of Libyan oil, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Let them get some skin in the game.
"It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel
And let's not forget Khadafi's outspoken support for Candidate Obama in the last election, either. After all it's obvious the POTUS spends more time worrying about his re-election than about world peace & harmony and he may need that endorsement again. LMAO.
Nobel Peace Prize regards
Julie R., Hope Springs Farm
Chesapeake Bay Retrievers since 1981
Morning Bell: Obama Dithers While American Credibility Burns
"President Barack Obama invited ESPN into the White House yesterday so that The Worldwide Leader In Sports could tape his picks for the 2011 NCAA basketball tournament. The President picked all frontrunners. Good for him. Meanwhile, 5,000 miles away, a Libyan rebel defending the town of Ajdabiya from Muammar Qadhafi loyalists told The Washington Post: “These politicians are liars. They just talk and talk, but they do nothing.” One hundred miles north, in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, rebel spokeswoman Iman Bugaighis told The New York Times that Western nations had “lost any credibility.”
President Obama cannot be blamed for the failure of the rebels to hold off advances by Qadhafi’s army. But he can be blamed for raising expectations for U.S. military action beyond what he was prepared to commit. On March 3, President Obama said: “With respect to our willingness to engage militarily, … I’ve instructed the Department of Defense … to examine a full range of options. I don’t want us hamstrung. … Going forward, we will continue to send a clear message: The violence must stop. Muammar Gaddafi has lost legitimacy to lead, and he must leave.” Heritage Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes writes: “This is the worst of all worlds. People in the Middle East (not to mention Americans) are rightly confused by the mismatch between the Administration’s rhetoric and actions.”
The tragedy unfolding in Libya is just another example of why the Obama Doctrine was destined to fail. The Obama Doctrine is ill-suited to dealing with the world as it is. It assumes that big problems can be solved with big words while the messy details take care of themselves. It places far too much confidence in international entities, disregards for the importance of American independence, and fails to emphasize American exceptionalism.
Diplomacy is fundamental to the conduct of American foreign policy. That is why the Founders removed the conduct of diplomacy from the states of the Union and placed its practice under the President of the United States. But the Obama Doctrine misunderstands how diplomacy ought to be practiced. Heritage Senior Research Fellow Ted Bromund explains:
The purpose of American diplomacy never changes: It is to secure the national interests of the United States. … Irresponsible diplomacy comes in many forms. Diplomacy without strength does not even merit the name of diplomacy. Treaties that fail to respect President Ronald Reagan’s dictum of ‘trust, but verify’ are reckless. Treaties that are negotiated merely to encourage foreigners to think better of the United States are unwise.
Far too often, President Obama has hoped that fancy words, grand apologies, and supplicant treaties would strengthen our security by making the world think better of us. They do not. This does not mean that the Obama Administration should do something rash, like implement a no-fly zone in Libya, just so it looks like it is doing something. It does mean that to save his presidency and protect the interests of the nation, business as usual in the White House has got to stop."
POTUS...Putz of the United States