Since the crisis in Libya began to unfold, the potential Republican 2012 presidential candidates have espoused an array of views on whether and how the U.S. should intervene. Although the prospective GOP contenders differ from each other -- and in one glaring example a candidate seemed to disagree with himself -- there appears to be one area in which they have found accord: all have made the case that President Obama has handled the situation ineptly.

As early developments in Libya transpired in an unpredictable manner, the prospective GOP contenders were at first reluctant to chime in. But when the administration hesitated to act, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum jumped at the opportunity to accuse Obama of dithering. All three called on the establishment of a no-fly zone before Obama agreed to implement one.

"In a very short period of time he'll be gone," Santorum predicted of Moammar Gaddafi's fate, should limited strikes be carried out and a no-fly zone initiated.

In contrast to these calls for military action, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann spoke out against intervention. On March 17, Bachmann cited a lack of intelligence on the motives and backgrounds of the Libyan rebels as a reason not to strike at Gaddafi.

"For us to go in with American soldiers on the ground, right now, would be a mistake," Bachmann said. "We should not go that route. The same with arming -- I think that would be a mistake right now."

Once Obama authorized limited U.S.-led air strikes on March 19, the prospective Republican candidates came together and echoed a unified message that Obama was handling the situation poorly.

Days after Obama ordered air strikes, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney broke his silence on Libya and said that while he did support military action, he believed that the president had not shown an ability to construct a coherent foreign policy.

"He calls for the removal of Muammar Gaddafi but then conditions our action on the directions we get from the Arab League and the United Nations," Romney said.

Other prospective GOP contenders echoed Romney's suggestion that Obama was too concerned with multilateralism.

Following Obama's speech to the nation on Monday night, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin amped up her own consistent criticism of the president's policy, taking to Fox News to call Obama's address "profoundly disappointing."

"We're not hearing from our president what is the end game here," Palin said. "And with Gaddafi still in power, if we're not going to oust him via killing or capturing, then there is not an acceptable end state."

Although constant criticism from White House hopefuls appeared designed, in part, to appeal to the Republican primary electorate's disdain for Obama's every move, the incessant disparagement of the commander-in-chief may be risky at a time when U.S. troops are conducting a difficult military operation. In addition, Republican candidates have been accused of indulging in the kind of knee-jerk anti-Obama rhetoric that they objected to when it was aimed by Democrats against President George W. Bush -- even as progress was being made in Iraq.

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday made this point, even while raising its own criticisms of Obama's Libya policy. The influential paper, which has a conservative editorial page, condemned the "instinctive temptation" among some Republicans to oppose the Libya mission without sufficient reason.

The Journal singled out Haley Barbour in particular for offering what it called a "glib trope to the isolationist left" in response to the Mississippi governor's warning against nation-building in Libya.

"It is the kind of politics Americans have come to expect from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- ‘this war is lost '-- not Republicans who have since Reagan been the party of robust nationalism," the Journal wrote.

This reproach has also been leveled at Newt Gingrich, who seemed to some to make a 180-degree shift in his position on Libya. That characterization was disputed by Gingrich, but Libya -- and the Republican reactions to it -- have served notice that the 2012 presidential race is transitioning into a phrase in which candidates will be held more accountable for their words, even as the president is held to account for his deeds.