Hey, remember when that hapless boob Bush read “My Pet Goat” to schoolkids in a dire emergency?

[Logan Darklighter]

What a dolt, eh? But at least he finished it in a few minutes. As this guy says, “We’re going on four weeks now, or more, that Barack Obama has been reading My Pet Goat.”
What the hell are we paying this man for, anyway?
The rebels in Libya are about to be slaughtered, and looking to the U.S. as the one thing that might save them. What do they get? More empty words from "The One" that Qadaffy must go. And zero action. It will get a lot worse as Qadaffy crushes the last city offering resistance. But I guarantee you won't see much of it reported on. Obama will count on his media friends to not publicize too many
forty-bodies-in-a-ditch photos, assuming Qadaffy lets any get out in the
first place.
You don't get too many lucky breaks in foreign policy. A chance to drive out a terrorist who'd killed Americans with
only a light touch to spur things along in the form of some air support for the rebels at little to no risk to American soldiers would have been PERFECT for Obama. Talk about being handed the golden moment...
... and pissing it away.

As events moved at high speed on the battlefield, the U.S. and other
nations that have called for Col. Gadhafi's ouster continued to debate
how to make that happen.

Mohammed Abdallah, a rebel commander outside Ajdabiya, said foreign
inaction meant "the hands of the international community are covered in
blood. Now Gadhafi will keep on bombing and killing us without fear of
anyone stopping him.

Britain, with backing from the U.S., France and Lebanon, submitted a
resolution to the United Nations Security Council that, if approved,
would authorize the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya, as well set
up protected humanitarian areas, and impose new sanctions on Libyan
officials.

The Council was scheduled to resume discussion of the draft at 11
a.m. Wednesday said French ambassador Gerard Araud, but he said he was
doubtful the measure could be voted on by Wednesday.

"We will have a debate, paragraph by paragraph, as in a traditional negotiation," he said.

Senior U.S. officials said the measures proposed in the U.N.
resolution may no longer be enough to push the resurgent Col. Gadhafi
from power.

The White House chafed, however, at suggestions that inaction by the
U.S. and its allies have allowed Col. Gadhafi to regain the momentum. "We have taken dramatic action, together with our international partners, to put pressure on Moammar Gadhafi and his regime," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

This is a rare case where I think (hope?) that even the most liberal on these boards will admit that a Republican president in the same situation
would be utterly destroyed by the media for wasting time on something so
inane as NCAA brackets at a moment of global high anxiety

Dangerous levels of radiation leaking from a crippled nuclear plant
forced Japan to order 140,000 people to seal themselves indoors Tuesday
after an explosion and a fire dramatically escalated the crisis spawned
by a deadly tsunami.

In a nationally televised statement, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said
radiation had spread from the four stricken reactors of the Fukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear plant along Japan’s northeastern coast. The region was
shattered by Friday’s 9.0-magnitude earthquake and the ensuing tsunami
that is believed to have killed more than 10,000 people, plunged
millions into misery and pummeled the world’s third-largest economy.

Via Mike Allen’s newsletter, we see in the first line how the leader of
the free world will spend his day during this awful crisis:

President Obama is taping his NCAA picks today, and they’ll be revealed tomorrow on ESPN.

Okay, that’s not all he’s doing. “Obama will tape interviews from the
Map Room with KOAT Albuquerque, KDKA Pittsburgh and WVEC Hampton Roads
on education reform and the need to fix No Child Left Behind.”

He's managed to get his golf on during this period, I note. Priorities.
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell says -- quote --

"If George
Bush reacted this way during an international catastrophe -- wholly
irrelevant radio addresses -- golf outings for the 61st time... the
left-wing media would require medically-induced sedation to keep them in
check."

Perhaps we have the opposite problem with Obama. Order a 6-pack of Red Bull and some box of 5-hour energy drinks for him to kick-start his ass! STAT!
Of course that joke falls kind of flat since it assumes that the ailment that plagues Obama is a lethargy of the body and not the mind and soul. No, the real image to take away from this whole situation is this:
Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Obama golfed while Japan burned.

[robkelk]

The rebels in Libya are about to be slaughtered, and looking to the U.S. as the one thing that might save them. What do they get? More empty words from "The One" that Qadaffy must go. And zero action.

Well, yes - that's about all he realistically can do. What reason does the US have to interfere in a civil war? (Consider Vietnam before answering that question.)

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Obama golfed while Japan burned.

I think you'd better take a look at what help the US has already sent to Japan...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Black Aeronaut]

Are you honestly saying that the President of these United States cannot go and blow-off some steam? How many hunting trips did Bush and Cheney go on in the months following the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

[ordnance11]

Also face facts, we are still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. How long we are committed there? I say at least 10 years. And is it within our interest to intervene inLibya? Let's face it. Nations have no permanent friends..only permanent interests. We have an interest in intervening in Egypt if it came to that. The need to intervene in Libya is less compelling. Probably why we intervened in Bosnia and we didn't in Rwanda. And why we haven't intervened in Somalia since the Black Hawk Down incident. The Pentagon is not happy about being committed over there. It'll be a case of escalating commitment. People are already accusing us of imperialist pretensions. If the European powers want to intervene at this point, I say let them take lead and we will cheer them on.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Logan Darklighter]

Nope. Not saying that at all, BA. No President gets any "true" vacation time. They might go away from the Oval Office, but the work always follows them. Along with staffers and Special Service agents. 

What I am concerned with is what he chooses to spend his time on when he IS supposedly at work. Or at the very least be savvy enough to understand that even if his NCAA brackets only took up 5 minutes out of an otherwise busy day, the image is what matters to people. They want to feel confident that the "Leader of the Free World" is taking things seriously. And this does NOT look serious at all. Being a leader means being aware of how to treat symbols as well as the minutiae. Presidents Bush and Reagan both made a point of never taking off their suit jackets when they were in the Oval Office. True, they could have in semi-private moments. But the point is that it set a standard for the staffers. It showed a respect and a seriousness that I think Obama lacks. The President of this country is supposed to represent us to the world. And what does the world see? Obama teeing off for a bloody golf game while one of our top allies and trading partners suffers the worst disaster in decades if not centuries. 

As for Rob's point about the aid that America is sending Japan. It would go there regardless. Obama may have signed off on it. But he hasn't done anything else. Perhaps he could put off a few golf tees and NCAA Bracket sessions to schedule a visit to our stricken ally in person? Maybe sign off on some really major aid while he's there? You might argue that it doesn't do any practical good for him to be there as opposed to in Washington. But again - symbols matter. It would matter a great deal to the Japanese people to see the American President visit personally to offer aid and condolences. 

I am pointing out the obvious double-standard. If you get mad for people like me criticizing Obama for stuff like this, just remember that the press hounded Bush relentlessly for taking "vacations" etc. Of course, W was a bit indulgent in moving the operational White House out to Texas for weeks every year. It was an unnecessary provocation of the WH press and a free, mostly-bogus, issue for Democrats to gin up. Even though it's true that Bush spent more time in Crawford by this point than Obama has spent on his "vacations", there is no comparison. Crawford was a 'southern' White House and his home. He hosted meetings with many of our Allies and Heads of State there.  

Remember Katrina? I damn sure do. Remember how Bush was criticized endlessly for not being on the ball? I DAMN SURE DO.  Since people came down on Bush as hard and as relentlessly as they did for that, then Obama should get the same treatment for dithering over the Libya and Japan situations. 
But he won't of course. That's the double standard in action.  

Libya is, arguably where the ball was REALLY dropped. The Japan situation is horrible. But I think the Japanese could weather it without our help. Don't get me wrong, I WANT to help them, and it would be terribly wrong of us not to help. But I'm just saying that they'd be capable of doing it themselves, it would just take longer. In the long term perhaps it is not as important what Obama does or does not do personally in his role as Chief Executive for Japan. But he's certainly making himself irrelevant right now.  

But the situation in Libya is... excuse me... WAS... the perfect opportunity to show some real foreign policy savvy. Obama completely and utterly dropped the ball on that one. And I doubt anything he does now is going to help matters. Even if the UN and NATO decide for themselves that they'll police a no-fly zone, which is what it's looking might happen, I think what the world is seeing right now is a taste of what things will look like without American power. 

Maybe you might see that as a good thing. I don't. 

[Epsilon]

Remember Katrina? I damn sure do. Remember how Bush was criticized endlessly for not being on the ball? I DAMN SURE DO.  Since people came down on Bush as hard and as relentlessly as they did for that, then Obama should get the same treatment for dithering over the Libya and Japan situations.

Perhaps there is a difference between Katrina, Libya and Japan? Just maybe?
In fact, I'll give you a hint: Look up New Orleans on a map. Now, tell me... what is the difference between New Orleans and Libya? New Orleans and Japan?
-----------------
Epsilon

[Logan Darklighter]

That's all you've got? One line of snark? Nothing else? Please... The answer is obvious. The premise of the question is lame and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Rod.H]

Well, NATO/EU & the UN have apparently decided to implement a no fly zone on Libya.

The situation in Japan is technically not any concern of the US as they've not had any real say on the governmental control of Japan in decades, so all assistance has to go through the right diplomatic channels. 'Sides doesn't Obama & Co have more important local concerns to worry about?

I'm thinking that somewhere there's a self-important Washingtonista whose screaming to their yes men that their Toyota Prius has been delayed or destroyed in shipping.

[Ayiekie]

While Obama's response to the situations in the Middle East has indeed been disgraceful (but then, I expect nothing more from him), it's still quite correct to point out that blasting Bush for his government's inadequate response to a disaster on American soil is simply apples and oranges to any response to a civil war in another country. It is not an American responsibility to intervene in Libya's civil war - nor should it be.

[Epsilon]

That's all you've got? One line of snark? Nothing else? Please... The answer is obvious. The premise of the question is lame and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

When you make a argument deserving of more than a line of snark, I'll give you more than a line of snark. As it is, your assertions in this thread border on the hilariously ironic. You're just so caught up in tribal politics that anything the other guys does is automatically bad, isn't it?
Seriously. The situation in Libya is a massively complex event, one which the US can not (for logistical reasons having to do with your two ongoing wars) and should not (for various realpolitik and moral reasons) engage in any sort of unilateral action. Is the US's response to the revolutionary fervor in the Middle East unhelpful? Maybe. It certainly doesn't help that the US has propped up dictators like Egypt's ousted strongman until a popular uprising forced his resignation. In this respect, yeah, Obama is kind of an asshole. But then we know he's an asshole. This is the man who has not only retained but greatly expanded the extraordinary powers Bush II granted himself and his law enforcement agencies and the military. Obama, after all, has called for the assassination of US citizens, has endorsed the indefinite detention of prisoners of war and the elimination of the presumption of innocence, who has only protected companies from lawsuits in wiretapping cases but is in the process of expanded the ability of your government to tap your personal communications as well. The fact he has continued to shit on the Middle East just as much as his predescessor is one fo the reasons why the UN is turning to France to enforce the no-fly-zone resolution it recently passed because the involvement of America would do more harm than good.
Your entire argument is based on a simplistic and trite understanding of both domestic and international politics, as well as a gross mischaracterization of the actual attitudes of your "opponents." So having spent more time on you than your arguments deserve I'll reiterate my main point. When you present an idea that is unworthy of mockery, I will respond without mockery.
---------------
Epsilon

[ordnance11]

The bombs and cruise missles are already flying.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

Okay we are now waging war on Quadaffi. We as in Britain, France and U.S..plus the Arab League. I will not admit to being an intelligence analyst. However, I remember Libya's state sponsored terrorist campaign waged by the Libyan secret service when we toed with them in the 80's.
1. The bombing of the La Belle discotheque.
2. The Lockerbie bombing.
This was a time when there was no Al-queda or their proxies. Imagine the grief Al-quaeda or any group you care to name can inflict if they access to the technical expertise, money and military resources of a nation like Libya. After all, we did the same thing to the Russians with the mujaheddin in the 80's. And it doesn't have to be us as a target. Witness what Al-queda managed to do to the Spaniards about 5 years ago. They can decide to strike any NATO country with a big Arab population from which to hide and possibly draw support from. Maybe not now or tomorrow. But say 2-3 years down the pike. And they only have to succeed once. Glad I'm not an analyst in one of alphabets. This scenario will give me ulcers.
Edit: So the conclusion is...since this was started, the only good option is regime change. Otherwise Col K may decide that revenge is a good thing if he holds on to power.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Logan Darklighter]

America’s allies see only passivity or contradiction in Washington’s response.
Mr Obama seems to be cheering on the revolutions which remove long-time
allies, such as President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, while sitting on his
hands when it comes down to ridding Libya of Col Qaddafi, a ruthless old
enemy of the US and a lingering embarrassment to the Arab world.

In Europe, this passivity is greeted in different ways. In Britain,
the prime minister, David Cameron, is said to be exasperated at US
indecisiveness, with insiders describing the diplomatic process with
Washington as like pushing on a piece of string. In France, President
Nicolas Sarkozy has seized the opportunity to take the lead in
recognising the Libyan rebels, to the consternation of Germany.

Arab allies are confused as to whether they can rely on Washington
for support. It seems like Washington is no longer the status quo power,
but rather a go-with-the-flow power. It lets events take their course.

The first to realise US weakness in the Middle East were the
Israelis. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was able to defy Mr Obama’s
clearly expressed demands to stop settlement building. Far from being
punished, his obstinacy was rewarded with offers of more F-35 advanced
stealth fighters. The message has been heard far and wide: in foreign
policy Mr Obama is not an effective politician who can match means to
ends.

Well, world, you got what you wanted. Now I guess we'll see over time what that amounts to.

Be careful what you wish for...
I'm not sure what to make of a world where France is more willing to take the lead than America. FRANCE has more balls than we do.

[ordnance11]

Let's see if they hold the course after they have simultaneous bombings on their infrastructure across the nation. France has a big Arab (Moroccans mostly) who are an alienated lot in which the Libyan secret services can hide and draw support from.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Ayiekie]

France is one of the biggest military powers in the world, and has one of the most glorious military histories in the world (as evidenced, if nothing else, by the fact they are the largest country in Western Europe, a status they did not simply luck into). They are, not to put too fine a point on it, some of the most well-practiced warmongers on Earth and were doing it centuries before the US was a gleam in Britain's eye (and are still doing so now in several conflicts around the globe, including Afghanistan and the Ivory Coast). As a personal favour, can we stop talking like it's 2003 and people are still calling them stupid shit because they didn't want to help the US invade Iraq? Pet peeve of mine.

In any case, all of this attitude of "we must do something!" is still dangerous at best. Gaddafi's regime, while undeniably loathesome, is not particularly any worse than staunch US allies the Saudis, who just loaned a big chunk of their (US-funded) military to Bahrain to crush dissent. This is not to say that a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone in Libya is necessarily a terrible idea... however, acting like this is some sort of moral responsibility the US (especially) must shoulder is to ignore the fact that it isn't, nobody really thinks it should be, and both Americans and Arabs are very leery of the US being militarily involved in yet another Arab Muslim state.

It could be this all turns well, and Gaddafi is overthrown (and the rebellion doesn't turn out to be just as bad as he is, and it isn't a military or theocratic dictatorship once the dust settles, and puppies and flowers and rainbows, etc.). If so, yay. But what if Gaddafi keeps winning? Even without his air power he has the larger, better-trained and equipped force and he has all the momentum at this point. So do the US and allied powers just accept it as a fait accompli, shrug their shoulders, and go home to vote on sanctions that won't hurt Gaddafi much but will starve a lot of Libyans? Sad to say, that's probably the best-case scenario if Gaddafi wins, because it strikes me as far more likely that it will be decided to throw good money after bad and try to support the rebels with an invasion. How bad an idea this is is probably hard to overstate.

[Epsilon]

Logan, US warplanes are even now in Libya shooting at stuff.
What the hell more do you want? Your military is, in fact, intervening.
--------------
Epsilon

[Logan Darklighter]

Yes, Epsilon, they are.
But we weren't the ones who really decided they'd go there. The real deciders in this situation were other parties.
By the way, as to what I want? I think you're under the impression that I'm eager for us to intervene. Looking back at what I've written in this thread, I suppose I may have mistakenly given that impression.
Well I'm not. I don't think, aside from old grudges against Khaddafi, that we have any interest in helping the rebels against him. I doubt seriously that if he were to be ousted that things would be better. I think there's a very strong possibility that radical Muslims (The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Queda cells, etc.) will gain power. Much like I think that's very likely in Egypt. Sure, I'd like to see Khaddafi fall in a visceral sense. Lord knows he's had it coming for a long time. But really? It doesn't matter whether it's him in power there or not.
What I'm complaining about is the lack of direction in our foreign policy. I'd like us to choose a direction and STICK TO IT whether it's something I agree with or not so that our Allies know what the hell to expect from us. Because right now, we are totally rudderless.

[Black Aeronaut]

I figure it's because Obama is so used to compromise by now that he'll give at the slightest breeze. Witness the kludge that is Obamacare. Ouch.

Anyhow, I'm glad that things have taken this turn in Libya. With France leading the charge, it will be nice to have the International Community not think of us as a bunch of arrogant warmongers that'll invade other countries just because we happen to feel like it.