Naw, that's OK. I'm pretty sure I can struggle my way out. First I'll just reach in and pull my legs out, now I'll pull my arms out with my face.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/stalemate-in-libya-increasingly-viewed-as-a-likely-outcome/2011/04/01/AFxt1uJC_print.html

This is very bad news for Obama. If this really becomes a protracted ordeal going on into the election of 2012, it could easily sink his re-election, especially if there is some especially ugly incident in Libya to keep it fresh in people's minds. This has basically been a disaster for Obama from the start. First the uprising starts and Obama decides to do... nothing. A clever ploy, and one he's been reaching for more and more. Why decide something today when i can just wait and see what everyone else says about it and then agree with them. Like after the shooting in arizona when he waited a week to give his speech on civility. So he waits a while, actually mocks Hillary for wanting to intervene, but eventually pressure builds up with people upset at him for doing nothing. The french and other europeans want to get something done and it seems like a political wind is blowing towards getting Gaddafi out of power so Obama makes his move and jumps on the bandwagon only to find the wagon is empty. He is roundly criticized in the US for getting involved in another war (although he prefers kinetic engagement) and for not consulting congress about his war plans. meanwhile the leaders in europe all ditched on paying the check because none of them wants to be seen as responsible for the war, and the muslim nations that encouraged involvement have denounced and there Obama is left holding the bag. So Obama has make a sharp pivot and declare this is not a war, that we are not going to try to have regime change and that american soldiers will not be on the ground in libya. Thus creating some sort of differentiation from the Iraq war. Except then when does the mission end? Never? The mission was what exactly, to keep Gaddafi from killing his people, but not to take him out of power. Obama was hoping the rebels would do that for him, but it turns out they aren't strong enough. I know lets sell them some weapons they can use against Gaddafi and thus defeat him without direct US involvement, oh no wait it turns out that mean of the rebel fighters are al-qaeda members or at least for with them, so handing over powerful weapons is maybe a bad idea. That would be the worst of all worlds when it turns out the weapons we gave the libyan rebels are later used in afganistan to kill americans. So now what, we can't just leave without get rid of Gaddafi. Whatever Obama claims, if you come at the king, you best not miss. So now they are proposing a holding pattern where nato resources are expended to make sure nobody controls libya and this is supposed to be better for the civillians how? A protracted civil war. It is just all a giant mess. The right thing to do is obviously just send in the marines kill gaddafi or at least drive him out and let the rebels do what they will with the country, but Obama has dug himself in and can't do that, so he'll just have to sit on his hands and hope things work out. (or have the CIA clandestinely assassinate him like the british suggested.