This from the NY Times... With APDP opinion.
On Thursday, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser,Thomas E. Donilon, deflected calls for more aggressive action in Libya, telling reporters what American officials have been saying privately for days: despite pleas from Libyan rebels for military assistance, the United States will not, at least for now, put its pilots in harm’s way by enforcing a no-flight zone over the country.
Obama's lack of leadership, as the leader of a nation that championed freedom for all throughout the world will not, at this time, help protect citizens who have called upon our nation for help from the terror coming from the skies above Libya. Our Airforce is far superior to Libya's and would have little effort to enforce a no-fly zone
Not only is intervention risky, officials said, but they also fear that in some cases, it could be counterproductive, provoking a backlash against the United States for meddling in what is a homegrown political movement.
Homegrown? Or regional movement for freedom from dictators? Yesterday, the League of Arab States has called out for an enforcement of a no fly zone, which should tell you that even the Arabs won't tolerate the Qaddafi regime as the leader of the neighboring state in the region.
A senior administration official acknowledged the irony of Mr. Obama’s dilemma; he is, after all, the first black president, whose election was hailed on the Arab street, where many protesters identify their own struggles with the civil rights movement.
He is, after all, the first black president? There we go, that is a big deal to the liberal MSM of Obama's race. In the Arab world, it's not civil rights, but human rights they struggle for... But thats the American MSM for ya.
But Obama's more cautious approach contrasts sharply with his response in North Africa, where he abandoned a 30-year alliance with Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and has demanded the resignation of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya. But Mr. Obama is balancing his idealistic instincts against his reluctance to use military action in Libya, where the United States does not have a vital strategic interest.
In other words, he doesn't want to appear to champion a freedom movement nor a liberty campaign like his predecessor. 'Where the United States does not have a vital strategic interest.' It's two fold, a stable region for many of our allies, and that also produces vital resources to the rest of the world.... NO, there is no vital strategic interest... by this President....
How Mr. Obama manages to do that while also balancing American interests is a question that officials acknowledge will plague this historic president for months to come. Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”
Yes, no one would scrutinize Hu Jintao, because if you would, you would at best, be jailed for expressing your opposing opinion.
So is Obama saying he would be happier to be the President of a communist state because the criticism wouldn't be there, or what? Or is it just to hard to be the leader of a free nation, a nation that desperate people turn to for help.