fter days of silence, President Obama gave a brief speech Wednesday condemning the Libyan government's brutal crackdown on protesters, labeling the bloodshed "outrageous" and "unacceptable." The president said his administration is weighing "the full range of options," including sanctions against the North African nation. Obama also plans to send Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Geneva next week to confer with other diplomats about Libya. Still, critics have been blasting Obama for days, saying he's failed to support the popular revolt in Libya. Should the president be tougher on Gadhafi?
Yes, Obama's passive response has been shameful: In a dangerous, disgraceful "abdication of responsibility," Obama is doing nothing as "people are being butchered in the streets," says Investor's Business Daily in an editorial. He's leaving a "power vacuum in the Mideast," and "Iran's ruling mullahs and the radical Muslim Brotherhood" will be only too happy to fill it.
"As Libya burns, Obama fiddles"
Obama is wise to tread carefully: It's plain that Obama and Clinton are itching to do more, says blogger Sandra at Off the Strip. But Gadhafi is a "madman." Even with his regime crumbling, we have to be careful not to "tick him off," for fear that he'll "order his henchmen to go after Americans."
"Is Obama waiting til U.S. nationals out of Libya?"
It's time to get tough — even if we fail: Obama might very well be worried a stronger stand will "inflame" Gadhafi further, says Alex Spillius at The Telegraph. And the U.S. has "little or no leverage on his oil-rich fiefdom." But that's all the more reason for Obama to "place himself on the right side of history." The "flames of change" are burning, and Obama "needs to do his best to make sure they blow in the right direction."
"Obama's strange silence on Libya"
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
Subscribe to the Week