Maybe Lawrence Taylor could speak for Obama. He at least is an honest man:
I Hope Colonel Gaddafi Is As Confused As I Am...__________________
by Charlotte Hays
March 22, 2011, 8:35am
Our Libya policy is so confused that I hesitate to do another post on it. Does anybody have a clear idea what it is and on what principles it is based? The one discernable principle isn't a good one: that the U.S. has done so much harm in the world that she should never again act without the taming permission of the "international community." (Presumably, we still get to foot the bills, though.)
The most confused person seems to be gallivanting President Barack Obama, who has said (I think I'm getting this right) that Gaddafi must go but that making him go is not the mission of, well, the current mission, whatever that might be. I think the president believes the madman must "step down."
Victor Davis Hanson:
The Obama administration's Libyan strategy is a paradox - resulting from the president's belatedly announcing that Moammar Qaddafi must go, using military force against him, and then denying that our objective is to see him leave. ...
The Obama administration, after over two weeks of unrest in Libya, grandly declared that Qaddafi had to go. Why? I think because it seemed then almost certain that the rebels were just about to throw him out. We did not wish to seem calculating, opportunistic, and on the wrong side of history, as we had when we belatedly piggy-backed on the rather easy departures of dictators/not dictators - and former allies - Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali.
But any student of the Middle East could have reminded the president that Qaddafi is not Mubarak or Ben Ali, but more akin to Ahmadinejad, Assad, the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein. Tyrants of that stripe don't leave when told to. They equate exile with a noose. Such thugs stay in power until they are killed or driven out by overwhelming military force - usually well beyond what dissidents and insurgents can muster.
After nearly three months, there is also still no typology, even if informal, offered of Middle Eastern unrest. The Obama administration has not explained how our muscularity with Libya fits into our larger policy of embracing "outreach" to Syria, not "meddling" in Iran, and keeping silent about Saudi Arabia's intervention in Bahrain and about the popular unrest in the Gulf and Jordan. Where do we intervene in the region, for what and on behalf of whom, and how and for how long?
(Reuters) - U.S. military operations against Libya will be funded through cash flow, but finding the money will be tough given the lack of a defense budget for the 2011 fiscal year, the Defense Department's top budget official said.
Reagan was much different than Obama. Reagan invited the bipartisan leadership to the White House – Lugar as SFRC Chair – and told them planes were on their way to Libya for the sole mission of taking out Gadhafi, because of the intelligence that he had personally ordered the murder on a US soldier at a Berlin bar. Reagan said if anyone objected, he would order the planes turned around. No one, including Byrd, objected. Obama’s stated mission lacks Reagan’s clarity. It has gone from defeating Gadhafi to humanitarian assistance to whatever. There is confusion over the goals of the mission, its command and control. When Obama invited Lugar and others to White House last Friday Obama downplayed the need for war authority because there would be no boots on the ground and American planes over Libya.
President Barack Obama's recent performance regarding Libya is simply the latest in a long string of dubious "achievements."
This time, he dithered for weeks while a dictatorial thug slaughtered his own people, then finally announced a confused and confusing position.
According to Obama, our goal is the removal of Moammar Gadhafi, yet our recent military intervention is simply aimed at protecting civilians.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/03/23/20110323wedlets232.html#ixzz1HPsLaIeY