Who's in charge? NATO members squabble over who leads Libyan bombings...and they can't even agree whether to assassinate Gaddafi

How much more evidence of Obama's lack of leadership do YOU need to be convinced he is too lightweight for the job of President?

"A war of words has erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.

U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution.

But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader and that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

• Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
• No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
• Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
• NATO baulks at taking over operation with Turkey and European countries unwilling

• Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians

In the U.S. Mr Obama has made it clear he wants no part of any leadership role in Libya.

The President has already been criticised for continuing with a tour of Latin America as the military operation over Libya began. And yesterday he insisted again that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. is not prepared to remove him by force, but merely to enforce the no-fly zone. 

Even that hesitant stance, which has already earned him the title of the Great Vacillator, left him criticised for not seeking proper approval from Congress before sending the American military in."

[U.K. Mail]