The difference between the Bush doctriine and the so called Obama doctrine, is that the Obama doctrine WORKS!

Getting kind of lonely in the land of despots, don'tcha think?

The George W. Bush solution to terrorism and aggression (or just perceived aggression) toward the United States was to send military troops into a foreign country and lose thousands of American lives and spend trillions of American dollars, while failing to accomplish his goal.

The Barack Obama approach is to think a problem through clearly and then solve it.

Or perhaps to put it more eloquently...

I don't know about everybody else, but I REALLY prefer the "Obama Doctrine" don't you?

(H/T to the Obama Diary)

Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin angrily refuse to give President Obama any credit for death of Gaddafi.

Palin and Hannity essentially decide that this might be a terrible thing in the end because an even worse regime might rise to take Gaddafi's place. Much of Palin's concern seems to hinge on her belief that Islamists might take over. Which considering HER religious proclivities is fairly ironic.

But that is not enough for Palin, who then decides she needs to evoke the "Oh High Father of Republicanism," Ronald Reagan, to give the ultimate smackdown to those damn liberals.

Courtesy of Mediaite:

Hey, let me add something, though, to this Gaddafi regime change now discussion. And that is, it strikes me as quite ironic, Sean, that those on the left had been so dismissive of Ronald Reagan’s 1986 strikes against Gaddafi and calling it a criminal act and these are the same people now, today, celebrating Obama’s participation in NATO’s leadership with the air strikes that has lead to the demise of Gaddafi. The inconsistencies there with foreign policy support and actions that our military and our participation with NATO and what the White House does, the inconsistencies and the hypocrisy that comes from the left never ceases to amaze. 

It should be noted that Ronald Reagan's strike against Libya was NOT in support of a rebel uprising, was not successful in curtailing terrorist attacks, and that it in fact gave America a black eye in the international community.

This according to the BBC:

The attacks began soon after an increase in coded radio traffic between US ships and planes off the Libyan coast had been noticed. 

The fighter jets appear to have been both carrier based aircraft, operating in the Mediterranean and British based bombers which would have refuelled in mid air. 

The Americans hit the harbour's naval academy, the capital's military airport and army barracks. Tripoli's embassy area and residential districts also suffered extensive damage. 

The Tripoli central hospital and two other medical centres say they have treated hundreds of injured people, including a number of Greeks, Italians and Yugoslavs. 

Mobs of angry survivors have taken to the streets shouting: "Down, down USA. Death to all Americans." 

There are also fears that Britain may be subject to terrorist attacks because some of its involvement in the raids.

Of course there is NO reason to bring Reagan's name into this, as these are two entirely different situations, with two entirely different outcomes.

But leave it up to Sarah Palin to attempt to impugn President Obama's success by comparing it to President Reagan's failure.

President Obama to Libyan people: "You have won your revolution."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

No matter how you spin it, this is DEFINITELY a big win for the President. And I have to imagine that it is causing a great deal of heartburn among the contestants on that GOP presidential reality show whose immature antics have been so entertaining as of late.

The President played this EXACTLY right, and the fact that he suffered such backlash from members of the GOP (Including some currently vying for the nomination), as well as members of his own party, will only make him appear that much more like the Commander-in-Chief, and make the current field of challengers appear impotent and unqualified for the job by comparison.

Yeah the Republicans better HOPE the job situation doesn't improve, because if it does they are SCREWED!

The GOP candidates weigh in on the fall of Qaddafi's regime in Libya. Great, they can admit they were wrong and finally give President Obama credit! Wait, what?

Now that the situation in Libya seems to have vindicated President Obama, the GOP Presidential hopefuls are left in the ticklish predicament of having to cheer the accomplishment of America's military, and NOT accidentally give Obama any of the credit.

Let's see how they did:

Rick Santorum: “Ridding the world of the likes of Gadhafi is a good thing, but this indecisive President had little to do with this triumph.” 

Mitt Romney: “The world is about to be rid of Muammar el-Qaddafi, the brutal tyrant who terrorized the Libyan people. It is my hope that Libya will now move toward a representative form of government that supports freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. As a first step, I call on this new government to arrest and extradite the mastermind behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, so justice can finally be done.” 

Rick Perry: “The crumbling of Muammar Ghadafi’s reign, a violent, repressive dictatorship with a history of terrorism, is cause for cautious celebration. The lasting impact of events in Libya will depend on ensuring rebel factions form a unified, civil government that guarantees personal freedoms, and builds a new relationship with the West where we are allies instead of adversaries.” 

Michele Bachmann weighed in, also refusing to credit the administration or NATO: “I opposed U.S. military involvement in Libya and I am hopeful that our intervention there is about to end. I also hope the progress of events in Libya will ultimately lead to a government that honors the rule of law, respects the people of Libya and their yearning for freedom, and one that will be a good partner to the United States and the international community.” 

You know I was trying to think what exactly ALL of the GOP candidates had in common, and now I know what it is.  They are all assholes! 

Quotes courtesy of Think Progress.

President Obama announces that Qaddafi regime is coming to an end.

What?

No aircraft carrier?

No flight suit?

No codpiece carefully padded to enhance image of virility?

And they call this guy Presidential?

Well I know I do.

(If video will not play try visiting here.)

Libyans choose their version of the "Fantastic 4." Update.

Courtesy of Think Progress:

At the main square in Benghazi, people have been gathering to celebrate the end of the rule of Muammar Qaddafi. As euphoric Libyan rebels advanced into Tripoli on Sunday, there were scenes of jubilation in the rebels’ de facto capital, Benghazi, where thousands celebrated in the streets. 

One large sign in the middle of the square in Benghazi features a picture of the “Fantastic 4” (from right to left): Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and U.S. Ambassador the U.N. Susan Rice. The text on the sign reads: “God Bless You All. Thanks For All.”

Both Republicans and Liberals went after the President HARD for launching a military action in Libya.

To be honest I was not exactly doing cartwheels over the decision either, but I have learned with this President not to rush to judgement too quickly.

And what we are seeing today is confirmation that my "wait and see" approach was the correct one in this case.  I struggle every day to form ANY trust in a government that for eight years seemed to treat its citizens like potential insurgents and whose military strutted around the world like a gunslinger itching for a fight.

But slowly I am beginning to relax and to stop looking for conspiracies behind every action.

It occurs to me that there is very likely a LOT of things happening behind the scenes that we are not allowed to see, simply because the President is not exactly comfortable showing all of his cards to a VERY adversarial Republican party, who have already demonstrated a penchant for sabotaging his efforts to do the right thing for the American people simply for short term political gain.

Here is an interesting take on Obama's Libya decision from the Economist:

I AM on holiday for three weeks in a faraway corner of Cornwall, but the momentous news from Libya has reached even here. Barack Obama received a lot of stick for his cautious approach to the uprising in Libya. Liberals traumatised by Iraq could not believe he had started another war. Republicans mocked him for "leading from behind". But with the collapse of Muammar Qaddafi's regime now in prospect, his critics ought to eat at least some of their words. 

Like many others, I had strong misgivings (see here), for example, but the president remained supremely calm throughout and the speech he made in March looks pretty good in light of what has now happened. The intervention (Mr Obama notoriously refused to call it a war) could not have taken place without America's technological help; it was conducted mainly by allies; it had the blessing of the UN Security Council and the Arab League; and for those reasons it has generated almost no blowback from the Arab world. In short, a job well done - though I don't expect his Republican critics to be willing to admit this.

I have already seen John McCain making the case that this success could have taken place much faster if Obama had chosen to "employ the full weight of the US Air Force." But as most of us are undoubtedly aware, doing so would have brought Obama even MORE condemnation from both the Right and the Left in this country.

No I think Obama played this just right, and that this will be yet another big win, much like the taking of Osama Bin Laden, which will make the Republican's efforts to take back the White House in 2012 just that much more impossible.

(H/T to The Obama Diary.)

Update: