A behind the scenes deal?

Call me cynical, but….

I’ve opined frequently that, when push comes to shove, Obama will always hew to the strong man.  (Witness his dream of being President of China.)  With that in mind, consider this paragraph in John Podhoretz’s savage dissection of Obama’s press conference:

And what about doing something to help resolve the Libyan crisis in a way that might calm the oil markets? Oh, we are, we are! For example, we got our embassy personnel out of there. And we are making it clear to Khadafy that the “world is watching,” because, as we know, the Libyan maniac is very concerned about his global Gallup numbers.

Khadafy must be quaking in his boots to hear that the president “has organized a series of conversations about a wide range of options that we can take.” A series of conversations — now there’s something to strike fear in the heart of a merciless, murderous, monstrous dictator out to crush a rebellion.

But not to worry, America, we are “slowly tightening the noose” around Khadafy. This must be coming as news to Khadafy — since militarily he’s in better shape than he was five days ago. And not just militarily: Far from sounding more resolute yesterday, the president seemed to be signaling that he is prepared for Khadafy to remain in power.

Do you think that there’s a chance that this is more than just weak rhetoric but, instead, actually represents a deliberate plan to ensure that Khadafy remains in power? Recall that the Brits had a nice behind-the-scenes agreement with Khadafy to send the perfectly healthy Lockerbie bomber back home.

Does Obama’s bizarre, weak behavior regarding Libya represent his natural passivity, a passive-aggressive attempt to keep a strong man in power, or something arrived at working with Khadafy? The result is the same regardless, but I do wonder about the mechanics.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • jj

    If he were anything other than an Ivy League, Ivory Tower, Don’t-Let-Him-Anywhere-Near-The-Real-World functional (more or less) moron, the way forward would be pretty clear.  I notice he was without peer at dumping on an actual ally – Mubarak, who though repellent did observe a treaty with Israel and was pretty friendly to us and our interests.  The Libyan people right now would like our help to Khadafy Duck’s air force from bombing them, by establishing a no-fly zone.  This would take about fifteen minutes (you don’t need a carrier in the neighborhood, your carrier’s Malta) to establish.  It would cause the Libyan people to feel, at least to some degree, kindly disposed toward us and our need for their – or anybody else’s except, apparently, our own – oil.
    This is no harder, and no less obvious, than with a stroke of your pen establishing that health insurers can compute in every state, thereby halving rates.  (A measure that would take under a minute, and cost about 49 cents for a new Bic pen to sign it.)  But our altogether bright little lad doesn’t do well with recognizing the obvious.  His advisers are the most clownish, inexperienced, inept, and least ready for prime time cast ever seen anywhere.  This administration is Romper Room.  Clinton?  Napolitano?  Holder?  These are people who go to work every day wearing big floppy over-sized shoes, red noses, hats with flowers coming out of them, and jalopy horns in their belts.  And everybody in the world knows it!
    Of course the most obvious of all the obvious things to do about Libya would be to have our splendid allies in NATO send a few squadrons of their air forces to Malta to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya.  They could get there in ten minutes.  I’m just not sure our splendid allies are better pilots than the Libyans though, and that could prove embarrassing if the airborne camel jockeys start blowing Eurofighters out of the air.  I guess I understand the reluctance.


    You asked about the mechanics and this news article explains it -the Arab League and Obama are on the same page.
    Arab countries appealed to the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone on Libya as government troops backed by warplanes fought to drive rebels from remaining strongholds in the west of the country.
    Washington, which would probably play the leading role in enforcing any no-fly zone, called the declaration an “important step” and said it was preparing for all contingencies. But it stopped short of commitment to any military action.

  • jj

    Of course, you have to kind of love the irony of Arab countries appealing to the UN for anything – having spent the last forty years turning the UN into a shower of Martians with their BS.  How’s it feel to be getting precisely the same sympathy and assistance that you arranged for Israel to get for the last half century, Burnous Boys?


    Actually, I have a theory as to the ‘lack of interest’ in Libya -Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. His release from Scotland to the red carpet of Tripoli, did not happen with a pinch of fairy dust and a magic wand. If Libya falls, the convicted Lockerbie bomber’s retirement is cut shorter than the answers we got when he was released by the ‘top notch’ medical staff.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Everyone that voted for Obama, come out here and take a bow.

  • Danny Lemieux

    This is deja-vu of Clinton and Rwanda all over again.
    Liberal foreign policy – p*** all over your friends, suck up to your enemies, close your eyes to evil and pontificate on your righteousness.

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, agree on the sentiment.

    Question, how do you pronouce Faugh?

    Faugh = Faw?

    Faugh = Fuff?

    Faugh = Fow?

    Faugh = Fah?

    Faugh = Faff?

  • Danny Lemieux

    Charles M,
    Think…fiff, faff, faw, fum! It depends on the Englishman.

  • Charles Martel


  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    A no fly zone is a substantial investment of resources and an above average risk level for our pilots.