THIS IS WHAT WE'VE COME TO – AT 8:39 A.M. ET:  We once had Ronald Reagan as president.  He told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."  We once had George W. Bush as president.  He made clear to enemies of the United States precisely what would happen to them.  Now we have someone else, as the Washington Post tells us:

President Obama is content to let other nations publicly lead the search for solutions to the Libyan conflict, his advisers say, a stance that reflects the more humble tone he has sought to bring to U.S. foreign policy but one that also opens him to criticism that he is a weak leader.

The latter is correct.  There's nothing humble about him.

The tactic is anathema to many conservatives and worries some liberal interventionists, who believe that only overt American authority can assemble an effective opposition to brutal authoritarian governments such as that of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

Although Obama sees advantages in keeping Washington in the background, especially in a region where the United States is held in such low regard, he has exposed himself to Republican charges that he is absent at a time of crisis. Conservatives say his one-of-the-team approach could also signal a decline in American fortitude after nearly a decade of war.

It signals a decline in leftist fortitude, not that there was much there to start with.

Since the uprising began, Obama has devoted just one set of public remarks solely to the situation in Libya, where fighting has reached a harsh stalemate. European nations have taken the lead in drafting a no-fly zone resolution, and Obama has yet to say whether he favors one. He followed France in calling for Gaddafi's ouster.

COMMENT:  How pathetic we've become under this president.  And what is the left exercised about today?  Why, they're upset about Rep. Peter King's congressional probe into radicalization of American Muslims.  I guarantee that if some liberal announced hearings into the radicalization of Christians, the left would be cheering.

March 10, 2011