Is There a Pattern in "Supporting Rebels"?

Glad you asked. There IS a pattern in Obama's 'rebel-support' action (or in-action.)

Of the multiple rebellions now going on across the Arab world, the one with most potential to damage American interests is in Egypt, with Yemen perhaps a close second. The revolt with the most potential to advance American interests is taking place in Syria. Strangely, the Obama administration has taken a negative attitude toward that uprising, apparently on the inexplicable ground that it considers Assad a "reformer."

And of course, there's the Iranian kerfuffle, studiously ignored by Obama for a couple of weeks--after which Obama came forth and offered....nothing... to the rebels.

Now it appears that the Obama Regime expects Qaddafy to bail out of Libya in the next month or so; one of the Obozo sycophants is claiming that 'all the rebellions in the Middle East are a result of Obama's words,' beginning with the Cairo speech of a couple years back.

So.

Some rebellions are good: those which (most likely) will endanger US interests in the Middle East. Others--not so good. Let the Iranian demonstrators be killed, like the Sudanese. Too bad.

On the other hand, if we are reasonably certain that the Bad Guy will abscond (see: Qaddafy), then by all means, engage!

And lie about "boots on the ground," too. Wouldn't want to explain that to Congress or the citizens, now, would we?