The word is out among the "cognoscenti," (another word, Fred) that both Clinton and Gates are thoroughly dillusioned about Obama. His self-obsession and inattention to foreign policy (except at the level of a graduate school seminar) have been wearing.
There have too many self-indulgent rounds of golf (supposedly three or four a week), White House galas, and trivial domestic trips to grammar schools for the purpose of posturing.
I suppose that he will appoint someone like Susan Rice as Secretary of State. That would fit the pattern. pl
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_us_mideast_clinton
Heck, this guy's not even paying attention to what's happening in Wisconsin!
Posted by: Carl O. | 17 March 2011 at 03:38 PM
Oh Brother, there goes the foreign policy if Ms Rice is the Sec State -something she has been aiming for so long. I would like to see her with the Russian FM or some South Americans.
She was put on a high pedestal by R Holbrooke but she is not that well regarded @ Turtle Bay. Most of the times she is M.I.A. , doing something in DC.
Posted by: The beaver | 17 March 2011 at 04:05 PM
No argument with the "Cognoscenti" from me, I've sounded like a broken record about this.
If Obama has approved Western military action in Libya, then he as obviously decided that there is some personal benefit in it for him.
He has probably figured out that it might make him look "decisive" in 2012.
Posted by: walrus | 17 March 2011 at 04:27 PM
The price being paid for foreign policy ignorance in our Presidents background is not starting to really be demonstrated. And so far the field in 2012 is astoundingly also happily ignorant. So here is a suggestion:
First list of all foreign travel lifetime for all candidates.
Second! And special training, education, or experience with foreign nations.
Third! International friendships and contacts on a regular basis.
Fourth! Donations from foreign governments to his/her campaigns! Opps that one illegal.
Fifth! International operations of a business or other organization that were led by the candidate.
Sixth! Family history and relatives still overseas.
Seveth! Campaign positions on US multilateral orgs and the costs and benefits of participation.
Eighth! Books or articles on foreign relations.
Ninth! Top ten advisors for each candidate on foreign policy.
Tenth! How US foreign and domestic policy relate to each other or don't relate in a campaign structured document.
Liklihood of getting any of this NIL to NONE.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 17 March 2011 at 04:36 PM
Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by: graywolf | 17 March 2011 at 04:36 PM
Col:
what's obama to do, anyway, intervene?
i understood you to say that we should not usurp the revolution.
i think he is all about reelection since his shellacking, and that for him means no new taking chances.
staus quo ante; full steam ahead!
Posted by: brian | 17 March 2011 at 04:45 PM
brian
Yes, intervene. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 17 March 2011 at 05:41 PM
He appears to be building a coalition.
If he doesn't and it is all US air forces, Europe and the regional powers will sit back and avoid the risk of intervention, which will in turn place an entirely American face on the intervention and even the rebellion- dooming it.
Posted by: mlaw230 | 17 March 2011 at 06:00 PM
You can hear the blanket being ripped and torn between Obama and HC.
In coming months he will lose Gates and Clinton. None of his other staffers are worth discussing.
Posted by: bth | 17 March 2011 at 06:20 PM
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/03/17/no-matter-who-leads-it-intervention-in-libya-is-folly/
Not according to THE defining Buchananite tradcon magazine stance. Nor Ron Paul. Granted, Buchanan himself sometimes defies his entire erstwhile editorial staff on issues.
Posted by: Ken Hoop | 17 March 2011 at 06:21 PM
mlaw230
"and even the rebellion- dooming it."
Not if we do not occupy trhe country.
pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 17 March 2011 at 06:24 PM
UN Security Council just passed no-fly zone.
Posted by: par4 | 17 March 2011 at 06:37 PM
There's a lot of anti-Obama projection into Secretaries of Defense and State moving on. How often do these people stay on for more than one term?
Powell only lasted one term. Rumsfeld didn't last for much longer than one.
I find it funny that Presidents doing what Presidents do, as in playing golf and attending meaningless functions, means much of anything. Bush spent over a year of his Presidency vacationing at his ranch in Crawford. Utterly meaningless.
@Carl
I would argue that its not in Obama's interests to do anything about Wisconsin. Why put his face on the efforts of workers to retain bargained rights? So the tea party folks and right-wing demagogues can make it all about him. Besides, he hasn't really done much of anything for labor.
Gates had to be convinced to stay on as long as he has.
Can anyone answer whether there is something to be gained by gathering consensus on Libya and letting other countries do the heavy work for once? It appears that's the way it's going.
Posted by: Will Reks | 17 March 2011 at 06:39 PM
Everything in life is relative. In the kingdom of the mindless and aimless, even Hillary and Gates (who has promoted or supported every misstep we've taken since 2001)can offer themselves as sterling examples of statesmanship compared to Obama. I've seen nothing, though, to substantiate that self-serving claim.
Can it get worse? Yes, of course. Incompetence in Washington has become like poverty in India. Just when you think that you've seen the very worst, you discover yet a lower level of destitution.
Michael Brenner
Posted by: Michael Brenner | 17 March 2011 at 06:49 PM
U.N Security resolution establishing No Fly ZOne and "other measures" to protect civilians just passed.
snark mode on:
Apparently Obama has been pushing for military action all along.
snark mode off.
Posted by: walrus | 17 March 2011 at 07:02 PM
I did ask for it, though I would rather a word from you than the many I've had from Obama. Safe to say I'll never be an etymologist.
Posted by: Fred | 17 March 2011 at 07:24 PM
There is a substantial difference between air cover and boots on the ground. The Libyan protesters were well aware of precisely how much help on the ground contact would provide to Qaddafi Inc.'s attempts to paint them as stooges of the West. Hence the British debacle. Also the protesters at the beginning of the revolt were over-confident.
Since Clinton is leaving, who would make a good Sec. of State and why?
Posted by: Jane | 17 March 2011 at 07:27 PM
Ken,
Certainly Senator Lugar does not mean to imply that the no fly zone in place in Iraq in 1992 was an act of war against Iraq? Not to mention that non-declaration of war bill titled "Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq" that he voted for.
Posted by: Fred | 17 March 2011 at 07:39 PM
We all love a good story, especially one that fits our point of view. And what better source than the cognoscenti
? But even they, like lesser mortals, have been known to let their emotions color their judgments. I hope that we intervene, and swiftly.
Posted by: john siscoe | 17 March 2011 at 07:47 PM
Ken Hoop, Buchanan is no longer affiliated with Amconmag except they run his columns. Buchanan is tagged as an editor emiritus. The mag is run by Scott McConnell, a former NYPost editor, until he was expunged by neocons and he took a turn to paleoconservatism/realism.
Well, it looks like the sought after Libyan intervention will soon be a reality. Purple-ink stained democracy fingers for everyone! Will our ODA teams wear Phyrgian caps? Will the term of this occupation surpass our current one in Bosnia?
Posted by: psc | 17 March 2011 at 07:51 PM
The United 5 or 9 Nations voted today, 17 March 2011, to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009
Posted by: robt willmann | 17 March 2011 at 08:19 PM
Here is the UN's story about the resolution establishing the no-fly zone.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37808&Cr=libya&Cr1=
And this is supposed to be the draft resolution that was voted on, but I can't vouch for it. The UN does not have the text available yet, from what I can find.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/March_16_LibyaDraftResolution2011_1.pdf?tag=contentMain%3BcontentBody
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Posted by: robt willmann | 17 March 2011 at 08:38 PM
@ Robt
It was 10-0, 5 abstained:
China, Russia, Germany,Brasil and India
The draft from FP:
http://foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/110317_UNSC%20Libya%20resolution%20final.pdf
Posted by: The Beaver | 17 March 2011 at 09:20 PM
Obama's worried about chalk dust and we're going to get hit by the nuclear plume tomorrow. Don't worry, be happy. Sure. I want real time radiation monitors on the web now. Obama can eat my chalk dust.
Posted by: optimax | 17 March 2011 at 09:35 PM
Who isn't!
Posted by: Charles I | 17 March 2011 at 09:59 PM