Is the lesson learned form Bush the reason Obama can’t catch a break?

Since the beginning of this Libyan conflict, I have heard nothing but negativity coming from those in front of the cameras.  Channel to channel finds many of them saying either this president moved too slow or moved too fast, this president is doing too much or is not doing enough.  I was able to convince myself that it was mainly just politics but after reading this article from the CNN Wire Staff titled NATO gets key support as it readies to lead Libya mission, it seems possible that it may be much more than that.

Obama promised that the US would take a back seat in the running of this conflict and even though it is clear that he was legit in the way this started, it is rarely, if ever, reported that way.  After 6 days the above referenced article acknowledges what Obama promised “NATO prepared to assume command over the Libya mission Friday as coalition airstrikes pounded targets for a sixth consecutive night.”  I can remember another president promising things that did not happen and maybe this is the reason so many want to be right about their assumptions by doubting this president.  It’s sad really that a man can not be judged by his actions and their results and instead be held to a standard that on-lookers failed to hold any other man to.    Makes me begin to think that those with access to these cameras will always find a reason to doubt anything this president does regardless of what he does.  If the US does take a back seat to this conflict many may use the fact that “of the 175 Tomahawk missiles fired, 168 were from the United States and seven from Great Britain, the only two countries to possess them, while U.S. planes have flown almost two-thirds of the sorties and U.S. ships comprise more than two-thirds of the total involved” as proof that the US is still leading the fight.

There was a commentator on a cable news show who mentioned that the US will still be in the lead even if they assume a support role because we were more experienced than the other countries.  This article reports that NATO also has sent a directive to its military chain of command asking for a plan on how to execute an expanded role for enforcement of U.N. Resolution 1973, according to NATO sources” but even that may not be enough to convince the nay-sayers to just back off long enough to see what happens before jumping in front of a camera and dismissing everything.  I even heard prominent journalist and radio talk show host who should know better say that this administration was neglect in using diplomacy first.  Just this morning I heard a well-respected war correspondence says that the rebels needed more air support or they would have to fight an urban war house to house.  If it is our intentions, as the United Nation, to allow those within their country to determine and direct their own destiny of that nation, then would not rebels fighting for freedom house to house be the best way to make hem feel like they created this change instead of credit being that of NATO?  Just a thought, I could be wrong.