Re: Libya and the misdirection that is the Obama foreign policy

Here is what we do not know about the Libya Intervention and Obama's foreign policy:

First, we do not know how the decision was made and who, if anyone, advised the Commander in Chief regarding the Libyan intervention.

Is it still regarded as an "intervention?"

We do not know which country is actually directing the air campaign. We are told that this responsibility falls into the hands of the United States, but we have nothing in terms of a specific and detailed explanation on this question. Who is in charge?

How many civilians have been killed as a result of collateral "damage?' We have no clue on this matter, nor do we have pictures showing these casualties. Of course there are such casualties, which raises a question as to the openness of Obama concerning this mission.

Is it, now, an aspect of the Obama Doctrine that international collusion usurps the need for the independent and sovereign will of the United States of America? I have often claimed that Obama is a One Worlder. Why is this intervention not an example of the Obama Doctrine as relates to One World governance?

Why has the Administration singled out Libya to the exclusion of Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Syria, and Bahrain , and the reported inhumanitarian treatment of the citizens of those countries, especially Yemen and Syria? What is our policy as regards "civil rights violations" in foreign lands?

If we are not "regime building" in Libya, what are we doing. specifically?

One would think that after nearly two and half years in office, Obama would have a coherent foreign policy in place, giving us a degree of confidence as to what he might do next. Understand that a specified "doctrine" would serve as a guide line for Obama, himself, a point of reference he could use as he deals with the next crisis and the one following. Without such a document, Obama has to make things up as he goes from one international disaster to another. Not good.

I maintain that we have no such policy because golf (61 trips to the links is more than a months worth of playing that game - a full month of playing games), night time parties at the White House (more than 500 to date), personal appearances and interviews ( more than one thousand, eight hundred or some 16 months of such activity . . . . 16 months of time spent talking out of 26 months in office), and world travels have combined to allow Obama only 9 months of dedicated time to serve as president since January 20th of 2009.

Some will object to the above analysis, arguing that "Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time." But, seriously, are these folks arguing that Obama is on the job, working, while playing golf, playing basketball, attending hundreds of White House parties, while making all those personal appearances?

Look, he has staff that can make those personal appearances. His presidency is one of the most tumultuous in recent history. While much of this is not "his fault," he certainly is the man in charge. The national economic crisis is a full time job, in and of itself. Add to this, the growing threat to this country in the Middle East (or should we say "the Muddled East?") , the threat to our national economy at several levels, and the national debt and you have described a job (the presidency) that is an 18 hour a day effort. There is no way this stranger in our White House averages 3 hours a day of serious, dedicated, focused effort on the above issues.

I should have mentioned this earlier in the post , but I must ask this question, as well. If Saudia Arabia becomes involved in the current Middle East rebellion, gas at the pump could rise to more than $10 per gallon. Likely ?? Not really . . . but there is a chance that this could happen. What is Obama doing about this possibility? I included this specific question because of the grave concern this eventuality poses. Look, should Obama be doing more than crossing fingers and hoping that we never have to face this particular problem? I think so. This single event would bring the economy of our country to a complete stand still. I can think of no greater disaster including a full on war, than this event. And if it were to happen, we would be wholly unprepared while some idiot would be blaming George Bush.

I could go on. The point of this post being the lack of professionalism seen in the present Administration. Obama is the CEO of the largest economic machine in the world, today. It is time for him to move from community organizer to Chief Executive Officer. Can he make that transition?

It is beginning to look as if he cannot. The Peter Principle is at play here, with no better example, I fear, than Barack Obama.