Why should Obama worry about Iraq when there’s Martha’s Vineyard?

Andrew Bolt Herald Sun (Australia)
A perfect snap-shot of the disengaged presidency of Vacationer-in-Chief Barack Obama:

The U.S. military campaign launched in Iraq Friday could go on for months, President Barack Obama said Saturday from the White House, but noted that he would not provide a specific timeline.
“I’m not going to give a particular timetable,” Obama said before leaving for a two-week summer vacation at Martha’s Vineyard.

Reader cynical1:

Rome, meet Nero.

UPDATE
Even Hillary Clinton is now attacking Obama for his lethal lack of leadership:

President Obama has long ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups—like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today—from seizing control of the rebellion…
Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the “failure” that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.

But I suspect the right call was actually the one Russia took. Hold your nose and back Assad.

[ED: published in full here due to the articles importance. ]