Just caught my eye this comparison of headlines exactly 8 years apart...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

Originally Posted by Bucco

Just caught my eye this comparison of headlines exactly 8 years apart...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

Gee, these statements do sound very similar don't they. Does that mean that George W. Bush really was a great president and world leader, or does it mean that Barack H. Obama is a stupid warmonger only interested in oil?

If American boots hit the ground in Libya, you'll have more of an answer.

only a matter of time before the American boots are on the ground.

A statement from Obam, displaying real, leadership could be to state America has no direct responsibility or affect from the Libyan dispute. That America's PRIORITY is to continue to focus it's resources on the established commitments and objectives in Iraq and Afganistan.

His current position regardless how interpreted by whoever is not one of leadership. He is standing by the side of the road where he is usually parked on anything controversial. My opinion.

btk

...and what would your opinion be if he did nothing? Would you say "Good for Obama for keeping us out of another war"? ...or would your reaction be "See? Obama can't lead and doesn't give a damn about sufferring people!".

I mean, come on - do you really think that "real leadership" would be displayed with a "we don't care" statement?

a statement or what the US position could be or what he thinks of the killing of the rebels. He did not....he in fact said nothing one way or the other for several days. Then taking a position after the UN came forward.

I don't measure him based on whether he is right or wrong. Just coming out and taking a position.

And I do find it acceptable to not commit to another involvement while in the midst of 2 wars....the so called "do nothing that you choose to refer to it as.
The UN and other coalition countries are capable of dealing with an altercation that more directly affects their countries.

I am not just looking for him to say/do something that I may agree with or not....ONLY that he step up state the position of the USA.

My opinion is his continuing political positioning is an impediment to true leadership.

btk