i'm not necessarily saying you're wrong on the points you've made, but there are a few key differences in the nature of the conflicts in iraq and libya. at the time bush (and the democratic congress) decided to attack iraq, there were no war, no active resistance movement, and no humanitarian crisis (or crisis of any other kind) in progress. when obama made the move to intervene in Libya, there were already a civil war and humanitarian crisis, with opposition forces which would soon be annihilated if action was not taken immediately. of course, part of that situation resulted from obama not acting sooner. nonetheless, they're not exactly parallel situations.

I guess, as President of the Senate, Biden would lend his support to anyone who moved to impeach Obama, right? I mean, Democrats are always saying how the Republicans have no real principles, and just care about power, so I'm sure a leading Democrat like Biden would want to set an example.

1) Lack of international support. Yet 14 more countries supported the invasion of Iraq than are currently supporting the intervention in Libya.

2) No formal "Declaration of War" by Congress. "Approval for the use of Military Force" is not the same, apparently, as declaring war. But I guess engaging in military action without congressional oversight is much better.

3) It was a war over oil. Because obviously there's no oil in Libya...

4) Taking on another military intervention when the last one (in Afghanistan) wasn't finished yet. Remind me, are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over?

5) It was all a way to mask the rising unemployment rate (a whopping 4% in some parts of the US) by recruiting young men into the military to mask the real extent of unemployment. Is my maths wrong or is 8.9% higher than 4%?

6) Wasting money. The country was burdened by a massive, crippling debt and couldn't afford a war. The deficit in 2002 was $150 billion. But it's less now, right? Good thing the Democrats placed such high importance on the deficit...

I'm not saying Obama's decision was wrong (in fact I think he should have taken this action sooner) but it's telling that the same people who bashed Bush's war policy are conspicuously quiet right now...

We're past the halfway point of Obama's presidency..

Does ANYONE here... anyone at all... know exactly what Obama really stands for??? What he believes in??

I don't think anyone does..

And that's the problem.

We SHOULD....

Michale....

Awwwww, come on!! I am having soo much fun with it!! :D

you would not be happy with pretty much anything he'd do, because you'd still have talking points to say it was the wrong thing to do.

Not so... I listed several things that Obama could have done.... SHOULD have done... that I would have been ecstatic with... And Moderate added one more excellent suggestion..

You know me. If Obama does something I agree with, I'll put my stamp of approval on it. Grudgingly, to be sure, but I'll give credit where credit is due..

When Egypt happened, you were following the Fox News line: "be very afraid of the protesters! Muslim Brotherhood!" Obama was working behind the scenes to keep the military in check. Outcome: pretty darn good, so far. Elections will be held next week, on constitutional amendments. So who was right, and who was wrong on that one?

I wouldn't characterize my response as the "be very afraid" variety.. I simply stated that there was legitimate concern as to who will ultimately end up in power.. And there still is..

I will concede that, so far, things do appear to be going Obama's way in this. Although, it doesn't look like Egypt will be the friend to the US that it once was. Hopefully our military ties with Egypt will win out over the protesters obvious hatred of the US, as evidenced by the snubbing that our SecState received on a recent visit..

So, Egypt is definitely up in the air and I don't think Obama should be breaking out the champagne just yet...

When Libya happened, you again follow the "dithering!" Fox News line.

Don't blame me that FNC seems to call it right more often than not.. :D

I also remind you that the general opinion amongst our allies (those that we have left) is much the same..

But if America had gone it alone early, as you are suggesting, then we would have a full-on third war that we alone would be waging.

Not so... We would have had as strong a coalition then as we do now. Perhaps stronger because back then, other countries would have been following a LEADER, not a country who only took steps when it looked like they were going to be made to look the fool...

It's easy to Monday-monring quarterback. It's not so easy when you're actually in the hot seat.

You are absolutely correct. I said the same thing to ya'all many times during the Bush years. :D

Now, I'm not saying this is all going to work out great in Libya, but methinks you guys are a little quick to suggest it's doomed. Let it play out. See what happens, that's all I'm asking.

Oh, of course. You think I would pass up a chance to tell Obama, "I TOLD YA SO!~~" :D

Regardless of how it plays out, our credibility has been damaged by our lack of resolve on Libya...

Again, that's not ME saying it. That's the world saying it. Based on media reports from other countries..

Libya is simply another example of a wishy-washy leadership style that is only moved to action when circumstances FORCE action..

Obama is a re-active president.

In, the dangerous world of the here and now, that is NOT a good thing to be..

One more thing. You've been saying for over a year now that "if Obama had only voiced strong support for the protesters in Iran, then everything would have worked out wonderfully and they would have bare-handedly overthrown their government."

Well, I wouldn't characterize my words as such.. I stated that Obama should have done more than just some weak verbal platitudes here and there... And I never claimed that things would have worked out wonderfully. I simply stated that things would likely have worked out better for the protesters than the mass killings and executions that they experienced...

Such beliefs are completely in keeping with my current beliefs that in Libya, Obama should have done more than weak verbal platitudes. And I listed the things that Obama, that a REAL leader WOULD have done in these circumstances.

Looking at things completely objectively, Obama's leadership during the Libya crisis (and, to a different extent, the Japanese crisis) has been a mess. Much as with Egypt, his administration was all over the place. His SecState was saying this, his NSA was saying that and his DefSec was saying something else.

Again, it's not ME saying that Obama's leadership has been found wanting. Well.. It's not JUST me. :D Read some reports from the world press...

The majority of reports find the US actions and LACK of actions perplexing. They don't know what strategy the US is following or if the US is even following a strategy, but is rather just lurching from one crisis to another like a rudderless ship...

Hillary would definitely have been the better choice for President.

And I can't believe I am even THINKING that, let along posting it! :D

Love her or hate her, no one would EVER accuse her of being indecisive or rudderless... :D

Michale....

One more thing. You've been saying for over a year now that "if Obama had only voiced strong support for the protesters in Iran, then everything would have worked out wonderfully and they would have bare-handedly overthrown their government."

Libya proves how wrong this is. When a totalitarian regime has no compunction about shooting people in the street, it matters not a fart in a windstorm what anyone outside the country is saying. Obama followed EXACTLY the course of action in Libya that you've been saying he should have followed in Iran, and the result is exactly what you said wouldn't happen in Iran -- a crackdown, no matter what Obama was saying.

Or were you advocating military intervention in Iran, too? I forget.

-CW

I hate to stop this knee-jerk anti-Obama fest, but seriously, you would not be happy with pretty much anything he'd do, because you'd still have talking points to say it was the wrong thing to do.

When Egypt happened, you were following the Fox News line: "be very afraid of the protesters! Muslim Brotherhood!" Obama was working behind the scenes to keep the military in check. Outcome: pretty darn good, so far. Elections will be held next week, on constitutional amendments. So who was right, and who was wrong on that one?

When Libya happened, you again follow the "dithering!" Fox News line. But if America had gone it alone early, as you are suggesting, then we would have a full-on third war that we alone would be waging. Because Obama got the world's opinion on his side, it will mostly be the French, the British, the Italians, and the Canadians who will be enforcing the no-fly zone. As for "dithering," oh, please. Go check the amount of time Bush took to start the war in Afghanistan. Or Iraq, for that matter -- count how many MONTHS from when Congress voted to when it started. And name me one war, post-WWII, where American troops have acted faster than in Libya.

Oh, and you should really read this, too. Just because Ghaddafi's bad doesn't mean the alternative might not be worse. As you were saying (but no longer seem to be) on Egypt.

It's easy to Monday-monring quarterback. It's not so easy when you're actually in the hot seat.

Now, I'm not saying this is all going to work out great in Libya, but methinks you guys are a little quick to suggest it's doomed. Let it play out. See what happens, that's all I'm asking.

I'll get to individual points later, if I have the time, but I just wanted to pass along a quote I just read recently:

"I've yet to see any problem, however complicated, which when you looked at it the right way didn't become still more complicated."
(Poul Anderson, "Call Me Joe")

-CW

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

Michale.....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-19-10-02-15

:^/

The words "bomb" and "stone age" come to mind....

Michale.....

I don't...

Bush was never accused of "dithering"...

Under Bush, the US may have been hated and feared, but it was never dismissed...

between attacking iraq on faulty intel, warrantless domestic wiretaps, waterboarding at gitmo, CIA Leaks from the VP's office, improper US Attorney firings, abuse of patients at walter reed, refusing to sign kyoto, bailing out AIG, funding Blackwater and other sketchy companies, failing to respond to katrina, having an iraqi reporter throw a shoe at him, and cheney shooting a friend in the face...

Most of which Obama has done much worse...

Except the shooting in the face part. Obama's a wuss and is afraid of guns. :D

...perhaps obama still has some catching up to do. i mean, the nobel people gave him a peace prize just for not being bush. thus, the likelihood of obama equaling bush's infamy in the international community is extremely low, even if he does somehow win a second term.

And that's a pretty big "IF" at this point in time. :D

US credibility has taken a big hit on the world stage under Obama..

This latest Libya debacle is simply another example..

Don't take my word for it...

Peruse some of the world press...

Michale.....

until such a time, libya is just one big goof-up that may potentially still be saved if obama acts quickly to clean it up.

i think that may be overstating the case.

between attacking iraq on faulty intel, warrantless domestic wiretaps, waterboarding at gitmo, CIA Leaks from the VP's office, improper US Attorney firings, abuse of patients at walter reed, refusing to sign kyoto, bailing out AIG, funding Blackwater and other sketchy companies, failing to respond to katrina, having an iraqi reporter throw a shoe at him, and cheney shooting a friend in the face...

...perhaps obama still has some catching up to do. i mean, the nobel people gave him a peace prize just for not being bush. thus, the likelihood of obama equaling bush's infamy in the international community is extremely low, even if he does somehow win a second term.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libya

Can ANYONE deny that Obama has really fracked up the US's standing in the world??

Bush, on his WORST day, never did as much to damage US credibility..

Michale....

I know the feeling. It's freaking me out a bit, too.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-

Michale.....

I am wracking my brain, trying to remember the last time I ever approved of something Obama has done.

I don't think he has made a good call since he ordered the SEALS to take out those Somali pirates..

It's all well and good to be contemplative and really think out your decisions..

But any good leader can tell you that sometimes you have to make a decision or the decision will be made for you. Usually with disastrous results.

As is happening in Libya..

Michale.....

Had the original plan been enacted immediately the regime would have been in no position to fly in arms and mercenaries, both of which have swung the momentum, which was squarely with the rebels before, in favour of the regime.

So to say "Most of the fighting, so far, has been on the ground." misses the point. It's been on the ground, yes, but using troops and weapons that were flown into the country. Since the original plan floated by Britain and France covered all flights, including commercial ones, there would have been no way to fly those in.

To add to the solutions Michale presented, America could have sent in Special Forces trainers to train the rebels. That limited military support is much less than will now be required for the NFZ. In fact, combined with a limited NFZ, this would have been similar to the successful strategy in Kosovo.

Not only would earlier action have been more successful in Libya, but it would have had massive effects on the region. It would have been seen as proof that America, setting aside its own interests in oil supplies and "stability" in the middle east, was supporting the Arab people in seeking freedom.

It would have been seen as making up for the failure of George H.W. Bush to support rebels in Iraq in 1991. There, much as now, the President dithered in providing a no-fly zone, and by the time it came about, Saddam had already crushed the uprising. Not only did this create distrust towards America which made Gulf War II more difficult, but it created a generation of young terrorists.

A no-fly zone now comes across as a self-interested involvement in a civil war, one that will likely be badly received by both sides. Dangerous radical Islamists are free, either released by the regime or having escaped, and this Jihadist element, which was not present earlier, creates a very real possibility that a no-fly zone would simply create a protracted civil war and lead to the increased radicalisation of Libya.

In other words, far from helping the situation, by delaying on making this decision, Obama has likely made things a heck of a lot worse.

If Obama has ANY sense of decency whatsoever, he will personally write each and every one of those condolence letters...

Michale.....

Let's take stock..

The rebellion is decimated and all but completely defeated..

Because the US dithered, we won't be able to split Qadaffi's attention between NATO/UN forces and Rebel forces.. Qadaffi's military can just use minimal forces to mop up the Rebels and concentrate practically the entire military might on NATO/UN forces..

Further, since Rebel forces have been pushed back to a defensive perimeter in Benghazi, any allied forces do not have a friend in the area besides Benghazi...

Finally, since it's likely that Benghazi will fall to government loyalists within 48 hours, there will be no Safe Haven for allied forces anywhere in the country... This means that all FEBAs will likely be at sea... And, since it's the US that has the primary sea platforms, the US will now have to commit more substantial forces than we would have had all this been done weeks ago...

So, to sum up..

By waiting until the Rebels were all but defeated, Obama has made it likely that the US will have to commit MORE forces to Libya.

THIS is exactly what happens when politicians wait too long to make decisions..

"Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself. And it is invariably the WRONG decision."
-Captain James T Kirk

Now, I have been asked before, "What could Obama have done??"

Let's examine what actions that should have been done THEN that would put the US in a MUCH better position NOW..

1. Recognize the Rebel formed government, as France had done.

2. Establish a CnC link with Rebels to facilitate intelligence sharing.

3. Provide Rebel forces with much needed non-combat related support, such as medicines, food and other support.

4. Encourage Arab member states to funnel arms and ammunition to the Rebels..

All of these actions would NOT have committed US combat forces to any action in Libya and would have possibly given the Rebels the boost they needed to hang in fight and sustain the brutal attacks by government loyalists...

Had these actions been accomplished then the US would be in a MUCH better position, militarily and politically, than the US is in right now..

In short, Obama screwed the pooch...

AGAIN...

Michale.....

Obama's indecision on Libya has pushed Clinton over the edge
Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after
2012 — even if he wins again.
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/03/17/031711-news-hillary-2-2/

Hard to believe I would find a kindred spirit in Hillary Clinton, eh? :D

Michale.....

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/16/need-know-james-clapper-director-national-intelligence/

2012 simply can not come soon enough...

Michale.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703818204576206432070204102.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

Well, I guess late is better than nothing...

It has nothing to do with being deliberative and thinking things out...

It has everything to do with the Obama Administration thinking, "We're going to look like idiots when, after all of our posturing and condemnation, Qadaffi remains in power..."

If air strikes are a good idea now, then they were an even better idea BEFORE the rebels were slaughtered...

Michale.....

That's kewl... We can disagree on this point... :D

I think the perception issue is a valid criticism..

And I'll bet ya quatloos that Obama's poll numbers will fall because the perception is he has been the Invisible President during these crisis....

Again, it may not be the reality, but it is the perception.. Largely brought about by Obama's actions.....

Fer christ's sake! You don't go play GOLF when an ally is facing multiple nuclear meltdowns...

It's just not done...

Michale.....

just to refresh your memory, in 1992 bush left saddam alone to reclaim control of iraq, and golfed frequently during what at the time was considered a pretty big recession. the left turned this golfing into a huge campaign issue, in my view inaccurately. just like obama, bush I wasn't ignoring any of those things, it was a clear manipulation of public perception.

i think your criticism on obama on japan is just off the mark; you can't just cherry pick one off-beat quote and pretend like he's not doing anything. in this case he has been vocal and unequivocal in his support for the japanese people, no matter what the chattering class or ESPN analysts may have to say about it.

as i've said before, there are plenty of valid criticisms of obama. in my not-so-humble opinion, these are not among them.

If Bush had gone golfing under similar circumstances that face Obama today, the Left would have been apoplectic...

And rightly so...

It's the perception that is important here...

As far as Libya goes, all Obama has done is spout words like Qadaffi's rule is illegitimate.... And yet, it looks like Qadaffi will survive to rule another day..

So the US looks completely and utterly moronic.. Like a British Bobby... "STOP!!! Or I'll say STOP again!!"

As far as Japan??

"It would be wonderful for people to maybe offer a little help to the Japanese people at this time -- as they’re filling out their brackets.
-President Barack Obama

Moronic... Truly and utterly moronic...

Michale.....

there are many valid criticisms of the president on many issues, but that's really not one of them. the exact same criticism was invalid when leveled at bush I, and it's equally invalid now. regarding libya, the administration is in a bind when it comes to intervening in (even more) foreign conflicts than we're involved in already. regarding japan, he's offered whatever support and assistance we can provide, so it's really improper to claim that he's not doing anything about it.

haley barbour, on the other hand...

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/03/haley-barbour-press-aide-resigns-japan-tsunami/1

Says it all....

Michale....

Chalk up another loss for the US... :(

Michale.....

Japan is facing an apocalyptic nuclear disaster..

And President Obama??

He goes golfing...

sssiiiigggghhhhhh

{cue Bush Vacation responses}

Michale.....

It is becoming increasingly likely that he will prevail in this civil war.

And that will be the absolute WORST possible outcome for the US.. It was embolden countries like Iran and NK immeasurably..

Michale.....

Well, that would seem to be entirely dependent on what dynamic you're talking about.

One thing is for sure ... in view of the monumental mess that the last US administration made of US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, if there is going to be a no-fly-zone over Libya, then it had damn sure better be led by the Arab League.

Oh, wait ... there is no sign of leadership that has ever come out of the Arab League. Sorry, no no-fly-zone, then.

Or, we could insist that Saudi Arabia lead the effort, all by itself. After all, it spends a pretty good chunk of GDP on its military. Oh, wait ... the House of Saud is too busy sending troops to Bahrain to stamp out the pro-reform protests there to be worried about a fellow Arab regime inciting a civil war and killing its own people.