The Obama doctrine: Are you a believer in cautious intervention? (POLL)
A Libyan rebel holds the Kingdom of Libya flag as he walks past a burning wrecked tank at a site bombed by coalition air force in the town of Ajdabiya on March 26, 2011.
/ Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty ImagesHe said that it was America's "responsibility" to intervene in Libya.
"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action," he said.
A look at the facts, however, reveals some potential contradictions in his policy of only intervening in the face of brutal atrocities. What do you think?
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 126 Comments
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 1200 Comments
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado 86 Comments
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 172 Comments














America's Military Industrial Complex (War Machine) contributed to prepared remarks. His decision accelerates USA bankruptcy, economic decline.
Another expense keeping US factories open, people employed @ tax payer expense, and expense isn't in current budget- it's off balance sheet.
Others must assume responsibility for conflicts in their region.
This should have been entirely the responsibility of the Arab League, and NO ONE else.