Obama has been contradictory, erratic, and late in almost every breaking development from the Middle East the last 30 days. Only recently has he started to repeat principled support for consensual government, though with almost none of his usual hope-and-change zeal. One might have hoped to see President Obama voice anger with Qaddafi — not to mention offer massive humanitarian aid to Libyans and express willingness to coordinate no-fly zones — with the same passion that Senator Obama went after renditions, tribunals, Guantanamo, and the Iraq war — or the supposedly belated federal response to Katrina.
Just a year and a half ago, at a time of grassroots protests in the streets of Tehran, he gave the world a sermon about not meddling in the internal affairs of a theocratic, anti-American, and savage Iran — and juxtaposed it with an apology for supposed U.S.-inspired intervention a half-century earlier.
Two weeks ago, his team supported Mubarak, derided Mubarak, called for him to leave — yesterday, now, tomorrow, in the fall — and claimed the Muslim Brotherhood was secular and now non-violent, and had a role but needed to be watch.
Top that off with our enfeebled response to the pathological Qaddafi, and one again gets the impression that an Ahmadinejad, Assad, or Qaddafi does not pose the same threat to regional stability, or oppress his people to the same degree, as a Mubarak, a Ben Ali, or a Jordanian monarch.
Gas is reaching $4 a gallon. Meanwhile, the Obama administration refuses to reconsider ANWR, spars with Canadians over increased imports from Alberta, has made millions of acres of federal lands exempt from oil exploration, and has placed a seven-year moratorium on new drilling in many offshore areas (they are counting on the authoritarian feudal monarchy in Saudi Arabia to pump more oil). This depressing landscape is 1979 all over again.
All this voting “present” is going to catch up with us — or rather already has.
A dictator bombing his own rebellious citizens does not anger the President. That is why you don't see more from Obama on Libya. After all, Gadaffi is the leader of the Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, so they're fellow travelers.
You won't see him denounce Castro or Chavez either. He'll sit down and have coffee with Ahmedinijad. Denouncing is for Right Wing Reactionaries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedoes vdh spew nothing but negativity?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was listening to the John Batchelor (sp?) show on New York's WABC last night. A guess was on claiming the NSA meetings regarding events in Libya and the Arab world in general just focuses on how the White House's response or lack of will play domestically. The topic of forming some sort of grand strategy to protect America's interests in the region does not come up. It is not hard to come to the conclusion that Obama thinks foreign policy is a nuisance to his plan to re-make America in his leftist image.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Gas is reaching $4 a barrel"
That's a darn good price! Obama should be taking credit for that. I'm paying over $3.50 per *gallon* for regular.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse$4 a barrel . . . I wish! Assume you meant gallon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse$4/barrel gas would be awesome!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Obama had jumped into the Iranian protests with rhetorical fervor, I think there's a decent chance that the wave of change we're seeing in the Middle East right now would not be happening because it would be too easy to point to "those meddlesome Americans" again and thereby discredit the reformers.
It's not particularly satisfying to sit on the sidelines, I know, but you can't argue with success. On Obama's watch, the Middle East is taking major steps toward reform. It's the results that count here, not who gets to take the credit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGas is reaching $4 dollars a GALLON. If gas was reaching $4 a barrel, then I imagine the only ones upset about that would be OPEC and commodities traders.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah R. Dave, it's not about who gets the credit, but as you point out it is happening on Obama's watch. Kinda like how Iraq is one of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration per Joe Biden, right?
Don't worry, Obama will take a stand when a clear cut winner is evident and then claim he was always there. He doesn't lead, he just shows up and tries to take the credit for how things turn out if it is positive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichael K... Our interests in the region of Libya were the 400 or so Americans trapped there until a few days ago. When they got out, strong statements suddenly started coming out of the WH. Risking the hostage taking of our interests in Libya by jumping into affairs that are not ours would have been stupid, and would have only allowed the regime and others in ME to declare that we're interfering again, and they would have been right. Even now, we should wait... until we are asked for help by whomever comes after Gaddafy. Or Mubarek. Or Ben Ali.
VDH has become nothing more than a scold as the policy he championed for so long has been shown to be NOT in the best interests of the US of A, after all. A nattering nabob of negativity, as it were.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI’m not sure that most swing voters who voted for Obama knew exactly what “Hope and Change” meant, but I’m certain that they didn’t think it mean silence in the face of a brutal dictator like Qaddafi mowing his people down. Objectively, that’s rather the opposite of hope or change. Even though I’m not a so-called foreign policy “realist,” I can at least understand the “Realist” argument for supporting authoritarian regimes like Egypt, even if I don’t agree with that reasoning.
What I don’t get about Obama and Libya is it’s neither in America’s real or imagined RealPolitik interest to have such a tepid response to Qadaffi’s brutality, and it runs contrary to our liberal democratic values. It’s as if Obama is completely apathetic to both America’s Geopolitical interests and doesn’t fundamental Western values enough to speak up against a dictatorship literally committing mass murder against its people on his watch. I’ve never been ashamed of America, because we almost always manage to do right in the end, but I am ashamed of this President who is apparently knowingly doing the wrong thing. Obama’s inaction on Libya is an obscenity against America and all the good America stands for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are too many uncertainties, too many moving parts, for anyone to know what's the best response to the situation in Tunisia-Egypt-Bahrain-Libya-etc. The results are, so far, so good. That should be enough and the Monday morning quarterbacks should turn their attention to March Madness or some other more marginally productive pursuit. If you disagree, just keep this in mind: that if you believe it to be legitimate to criticize the President today, on the grounds that his acts and omissions could actually have a measurable effect on these unfolding events, you will also have conceded that the President deserves all the credit if things work out well. Better to admit now that neither is the case.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn Maize, I hate to intrude, but you seem to have misplaced your argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan we stand two more years of the clown?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@180 Out
"you believe it to be legitimate to criticize the President today, on the grounds that his acts and omissions could actually have a measurable effect on these unfolding events, you will also have conceded that the President deserves all the credit if things work out well."
Recognizing that the President (and more broadly) US Policy can influence the Middle East's policy does not mean that a positive outcome would earn him "all the credit". You'd still have to assert some sort of causality between his action/inaction and the result.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCOuntries being taken over by the Muslim brotherhood could only be considered a success by someone who is either totally ignorant, or someone who is more interested in protecting his team than he is in telling the truth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt all goes back to his days at Columbia University, and the teachings of Manning Marable: Penetrate the legislatures, expand entitlements, restrict capitalism through regulation, and place all of this in synergy with a proto-socialist grassroots movement. 6 more years of this guy, and we're finished..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Gaddafi were a governor trying to put his state back on the track to solvency or an Israeli trying to build a house where his grandparents lived in East Jerusalem, Obama would have plenty to say. Ss it is, he is too busy "exploring options" to really become involved. The American public desperately needs to exercise its option in November of next year and send him packing back to Rahmville
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ john maize--
No.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBHO believes that the proper object of the coercive power of government is the citizenry, not foreign nations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse