Pirate's Cove

I don’t think anyone saw this coming at all. It should be a complete and utter shock to everyone out there, right?

President Obama has subtly shifted Washington’s public explanation of its goals in Libya, declaring now that he wants to assure the Libyan people are “finally free of 40 years of tyranny” at the hands of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, after first stating he wanted to protect civilians from massacres.

Yes, the NY Times is calling Obama out for his BS.

But, no worries, Obama is on the case

But if toppling Colonel Qaddafi is now the more explicit goal, Mr. Obama’s European trip this week has highlighted significant tensions over how much time the NATO allies have to finish a job that is now in its third month.

Mr. Obama has urged strategic patience, expressing confidence that over time the combination of bombing, sanctions and import cutoffs will force Colonel Qaddafi from power. “Time is working against Qaddafi,” Mr. Obama said on Wednesday at a news conference in London with Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain.

Really? It is? He’s made no moves to leave, and Obama has no Congressional declaration allowing the military to stay much longer. Also

But in Europe and in Libya, patience is calculated differently. Many countries are struggling with the rapid pace of operations. Some, like Norway, have already said they will sharply reduce their forces beginning next month. According to NATO officials, Colonel Qaddafi has a calculation of his own: facing a possible indictment by the International Criminal Court, he may soon have few places to go and little to lose by waiting out NATO and betting that European public opinion will tire of the bombing campaign and its costs.

There is no incentive for Qaddafi to leave, if he’s just going to end up in the ICC.

Mr. Obama, however, has taken a gradualist approach that is based on America’s bitter lessons in Iraq. From the start, he has declined to commit ground troops, and quickly handed off the lead in combat operations to other NATO allies, a move widely seen in the United States and Europe as an effort to avoid “owning” a war in a nation the United States does not consider strategically vital. White House officials have also said that Mr. Obama was acutely sensitive to not leading a conflict in a third Muslim nation, while Americans are still withdrawing from Iraq and deeply engaged in Afghanistan.

Alright, we already knew that he committed our military then voted “present.”

It all begs the question, who blinks first: NATO or Qadaffi?Will we see Leftists out marching in the streets against this illegal war for oil? So far, haven’t really happened, much like the Leftists opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan has dried up. I suppose it makes a difference depending on whether someone has an R or D alongside of their names.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.