The buck stops where again exactly?

Oh, it's Hillary's fault that Obama went into yet another war (without congressional consent). So far I've read the the Great O was "nagged" into bombing Libya, that he's an "effete" dude who let the foreign affairs girls "henpeck" him into bombing, etc. etc. etc.

Look, I like Hillary. I think she would have made a better president (or at least we would have had a better healthcare plan and someone in the executive branch who can at least spit out the word poverty) but she's way more hawkish than I am. But she's never denied that, unlike Obama. He pretended to be the anti-war president, but instead of ending either of the two official wars we're fighting, he's added a third. He is the president. The buck stops with him. That's true for the both international relations and domestic policy. If he really is anti-war, like he claimed to be in the primaries, then he's one giant leaking diaper of a coward if he can't stand up to his own cabinet. But I think it's worse than just cowardice. He's an opportunist who uses the words people wants to hear regardless of what he actually intends. If he was really as concerned about giving opportunity to the protesters screaming for democracy across the Middle East and North Africa, then Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, etc would also be getting the straifing treatment. But those countries have either oil and a friendly (to us) dictator or no oil and why the fuck should we care. Libya is the only country where foreign military presence means actual spoils for the foreigners. That's why we're bombing. That's exactly what an opportunist does, uses the hearstring pull of possible democracy to explain why we're bombing, while really he just wants to drink Libya's milkshake.

So liberal dudes and conservative whiners alike, you can all quityerwhining that Obama is some pussy-whipped dude. Chill with the sexism and perhaps your fucking critiques will hold a little more water. (Because if you have to resort to sexism, racism, etc etc to make your argument, then your argument wasn't true to begin with).