Bush Doctrine - Palin Doctrine - Obama Doctrine

What I noticed is that neither of the men mention human suffering as a reason to intervene. Palin did.

If President Obama were following the Bush Doctrine, he'd have used the revolution in Libya to rationalize an invasion of Qatar. When people realized there was a shell game involved, he'd have his administration announce that the Qatari might someday have a civil war. If President Obama were following the Palin "Doctrine," he'd say all sorts of things about the situation safe in the knowledge that he'd never have to make a decision on the matter, resign because someone on Fox said something mean about him, and get a job at Crooks and Liars as a commenter while explaining that people should take him seriously because from his house in Chicago you can see Libya on TV.

I think Palin was the most honest. He gave the right reason. Obama is just copying Bush's speech. And what about Reagan? Was it during hs term that the Pan Am flight was blown up and also that night club by those Libyan terrorists? I think Obama is being a bit overcautious in that Qaddafi should have been stopped before this. The idea of getting rid of Qaddafi because of freeing its people, defending the world, in the interests of the United States is being too generalized. There has to be a specific reason like getting rid of someone who will instigate terrorist acts, and kills lots of innocent people. People seem to forget that there has to be a specific reason, such as the leader massacring his subjects, orchestrating terrorist acts against another country, holding people of that country captive, widespread slaughter, etc. It should not be about oil, and that leads me to that, if you say that it is about oil, then by not allowing production in America, maybe Obama reasons are to make America poorer and encouraging a war so that Americans have to pay higher prices.

All smart leaders learn from their predecessors. Although I don't think Obama is smart, his handlers are doing well to learn from others as they pull his strings. I do not like being involved in overthrowing other regimes--that should be up to the people living there but I guess the Libyans are making a real effort and not getting good results so far.

If you look at the big picture when it comes to the entire region (since Libya does not exist in a vacuum) along with what has been going on behind the scenes, and not simply focus on public statements, it seems to me that Obama was following nobody's "doctrine". On Feb. 26th. several new sources reported: "Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has “lost the legitimacy to rule” and should leave now, US President Barack Obama said Saturday. Mr Obama made the comments during a phone call to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday – as the dictator began arming his civilian supporters to quash dissent. The White House said in a statement about the call: “The president stated that when a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now.”" This was the day after unilateral sanctions were imposed by the president. News reports at that time also indicated that, over the past two days prior, Obama had consulted with British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the international response to events in Libya. In addition, top US officials had been conversing with their European and Middle East counterparts to try to resolve the Libyan crisis as quickly as possible, as well as provide some semblance of stability in the region. The US also continued to reach out to Arab countries around the region in an appeal that they not use violence against protesters and that they implement democratic and economic reforms called for by their publics. (Incase you've forgotten, there has been a lot of public unrest in several Arab nations) On Thursday (prior to Feb 26th), National Security Adviser Tom Donilon spoke with Bahraini Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa to express strong support for his National Dialogue initiative. Donilon welcomed these and other steps “to initiate an open dialogue on political reform with the full spectrum of Bahraini society” and “urged continued restraint by Bahraini security forces,” a statement put out by the White House Friday said. Also, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman traveled to Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates through Wednesday of the following week. It's pretty obvious that support and cooperation from other Arab nations had to be gained in advance of any planning and in advance of the movement of any military equipment into their waters. Did you know those subs were there? Did you know that a coordinated strike had been planned before it was implemented? Neither did I...but clearly our Commander In Chief did and it took more than a day or two to get everything in place.