To a great many Americans, President Obama’s response to the Libyan crisis has been puzzling. First, dithering. No response. The White House claimed “scheduling problems” for the president’s no-show. Then, wimpy calls for Libyan government restraint and an end to the violence, never mentioning the “mad-dog” tyrant by name. Then, finally, following the lead of normally-reluctant-to-do-anything-whatsoever Europeans, Obama declared “time for Gaddafi to go.” Then, military moves with warships. Then, Secretary Clinton says we must wait for the UN and move only in an internationally coordinated way to aid anti-Gaddafi forces. Now, Obama’s director of national intelligence tells Congress (and the entire world) that Gaddafi will win and the rebels will lose.
Still, the blood flows at Gaddafi’s orders. News leaked out nearly two weeks ago that desperate rebels were begging the U.S. for military intervention. “Send Bush,” they pleaded!
Meanwhile, back at the White House, where the cowboy is no longer in charge, President Obama held a Motown soiree, danced the night away, and a day later served a sumptuous lunch to the nation’s governors while giving them lots of unasked-for advice. Instead of meeting reporters head-on to talk about the Libyan crisis, Obama sent out his new press secretary to fumble the ball. Then, Obama met with the president of Mexico, again, and, no doubt, offered to sue a couple more states. Obama took one question from the American press and it was something to do with an NFL union dispute. Now, the president is off on the campaign trail and planning his basketball party.
Confusing, to say the least. Libya? What?
Sentient Americans are left wondering whether President Obama fully intends to keep the mad-dog Gaddafi in power — no matter what.
Read More at Pajamas Media by Kyle-Anne Shiver, Pajamas Media
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven't already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.