Finally – Action Against Libya

Pages: 1 2

After a month of merciless slaughter carried out by Muammar Gaddafi against his own people, the United Nations Security Council has finally bestirred itself and passed a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya and air strikes to assist the rebels in toppling the dictator. The resolution also authorizes all military actions “short of a ground assault” to help the opposition bring down Gaddafi. Some are questioning, however, whether this maneuver is too little, too late, and whether U.S. leadership would have made the difference.

Less than a week ago, the White House was resisting an Anglo-French proposal for a no-fly zone and fought against including one in a previous Security Council resolution. Defense Secretary Gates was strongly opposed and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff questioned the necessity for one.

Few in the administration appeared to have the stomach for any kind of intervention – at least any kind that would be decisive. The exception was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who had been quietly lobbying the White House for the U.S. to come out from behind the skirts of the United Nations and assert its traditional role as leader in a world crisis.

Instead, the Obama administration deferred to President Sarkozy of France, whose government almost immediately recognized the Libyan opposition government while working with Great Britain to organize the G-8 to supply some assistance to the rebels. Chancellor Merkel’s Germany squashed that idea (with the assistance of Russia), but it was clear to anyone who cared to notice that France, not the United States, had taken the lead in organizing the international community against Gaddafi.

At a contentious G-8 meeting on Monday in Paris, Clinton was reduced to a sideline observer as diplomats tried to hash out a course of action on Libya. Repeated urgings from participants for a stronger U.S. response in the near term was met with silence from the U.S. Secretary of State. One diplomat told Foreign Policy Magazine, “Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” the diplomat said. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.” Later, in a private meeting with President Sarkozy, Mrs. Clinton could only say repeatedly that “there are difficulties,” when queried about a stronger U.S. response. It is unclear whether she was referring to difficulties caused by Russia at the UN or difficulties at the White House with getting Obama to make a decision.

Indeed, a Clinton “insider” told Joshua Hersh of The Daily that Mrs. Clinton was “fed up” with “a president who couldn’t make up his mind,” and was looking for a way out. Clinton told Wolf Blitzer that she had no desire to serve in a second Obama administration, nor did she express interest in running for president again. The source described to Hersh the Obama foreign policy shop, saying, “It’s amateur night,” and that Clinton had grown tired of the administration’s waffling. She had opened the State Department to the former staff at the Libyan embassy, giving them an office and worked hard to get the Arab League to back the no-fly zone.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.hotexchangerates.com/ exchangerates

    Perhaps Obama should be called "The Swashbuckler".

    • David W

      Maybe even "Swishbuckler", because he got dunked.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    I'm on record as opposing intervention, but talk about a penny short and a day late. True leadership!

  • ben

    Why are we involving in an Arab tribal war in Libya? These "rebels" are just a bunch of opprtunists taking advantage of the pandemic insurrections in the region to oust a dictator of the "other" tribe and install a dictator from their own tribe. This isn't about Democracy or freedom…these rebels don't even know the meanings of the words.

    And how hypocritical does America now seem after accepting Khaddafy's pledge of renouncing terrorism and WMDs a few years ago? We accepted his $2 billion dollars in compensation to the Lockerbie victims' families. We proclaimed Khaddafy a reformed man and even an almost ally. Then, overnight, he became a crazy brutal dictator who must be overthrown simply for trying to fight back against a bunch of armed rebels who were out to kill him and plunge his country into chaos. Is the wrold looking at the USA as a bunch of hypocrite backstabbers, or do they see us as unpredictable schizophrenics? In either case, this is the message we sent loudly and clearly to the world…DO NOT BE OUR FRIEND. First Egypt…then Libya…look at a map…what is the next country we send to the guillotine? Uh oh…looks like Israel.

    • Andres de Alamaya

      Right on, Ben.

    • ThomasPains

      Ben, I'd like to argue with your opinion but in all good conscience I can't. Khaddafy ordered the Lockerbie bombing we know now, added to the insult was the bogus near death release of the terrorist who did it. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would like a ringside seat to Khaddafy riding the lightning show. Call it revenge or maybe justice, but is it sound foreign policy?

      We've made so many mistakes down this nationbuilding road in our dealings in that part of the world, I don't think political correctness allows us to look at the real truth of who and what we are fighting. You make some good points Ben.

  • highcottonquinn

    And what if a UN authorized NATO is used against Israel someday? If one supports the interference of the globalist cabal of muckrakers against Libya then do not complain when those same internationalists eventually decide to use force of arms against Israel should she refuse to bow to international pressure to feed more of herself to the wolves. Should Israel refuse to cede J’Salem to either the muzzies or to UN control, what’s to stop these purveyors of the NWO from beating down Israel’s door? The elitists, for years, have been working to set Israel up as an abuser of “Palestinian” human rights.

    • Maggie

      You hit the nail on the head.
      NWO needs to control Jerusalem.

  • http://www.therepublicrevealed.com/ Victor Laslow

    The Obama regime has no intention of bringing down his compatriot Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi a fellow New One world order enthusiast. After all, if the revolutionaries were to win there freedom they may be what Obama fears even more than a radical Islamist society, they may become a citizenry made up of open minded liberty loving people who only wish to live in a democratically elected nation that has no ties to the Socialist One World Order.
    Victor http://www.therepublicrevealed.com/forums/index.p

    • Amused

      What a CROCK , Victor !! …is that why at this time US fighter jets are attacking Tripoli anti-aircraft positions ? Your " compatriot " must be Alec Jones .

  • SHmuelHaLevi

    I suggest to everyone reading the UN Charter and point out to us where is it given it the right to "authorize" the activities it has involved itself with.
    In Israel the prospect of those elements trying against Israel a Kosovazo or a Serbianazo or a Libyanture, or Afghanistantin, etc, if well known. I will not go any further than that…
    None of the purported "democracy" grotesque carnivals we observed in the ME starting with the one in Egypt or Tunis had a thing to do with "democracy" anymore than the Bush attack on Iraq had a thing to do with WMD's.

    Woe to the Libyan people with "allies" such as Soetoro and the rest of the NWO gangs.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I don’t want to see one American life put as risk to protect the lives of Muhammadans.

    • nina

      We have heard from Obama that not one solder would be sent to Lybia. Let's say that we believe him. But what about the monetary cost of this adventure? We are closing senior centers for lack of money, but we have moneys to spend on sending war ships to the vicinity of Lybia and pepper the country with missailes? This is a soft
      headed article and as others said, we shouldn't have anything to do with this disaster. At least we knew Khadafi, and he was sitting there quietly. What do we know about the so called "Revolutionaries?" I watched the discussion in the British parliament, and it is all a sham. such delicacy of spirit. They just can't watch the rebels being murdered. Did they vote for a no fly zone in Darfur? Did they fight the dictators in other African countires? Russia, China and Germany have it right. We also should sit this one out.

  • Alex Kovnat

    With all the endless play the news media has given to the nuclear disaster in Japan, perhaps we should worry to about what might happen if religious nuts (or any faction, religious or not) start blowing up oil wells. Remember the billions of tons of oil burned wastefully in the atmosphere when Saddam's forces rigged explosives to oil wells in Kuwait, 20 years ago?

    Frankly I would just as soon that our forced not get involved in Libya. Every time we stick our noses into the affairs of the Islamo-Arabic people, we get bit. Look what happened in 1991. We fought on Saudi Arabia's side, and what was our reward? September 11, 2001.

  • Shel Zahav

    Stay out of Libya. This is a rebellion, not by democratic forces, but by the next group of Arab thugs. None of our business.

    • Axe

      Exactly. Any progressives out there? This is what an "optional" "of choice" "unnecessary" war looks like. I have no idea where Moran or others are coming from on this, unless they really believe that ridiculous "a month of merciless slaughter carried out by Muammar Gaddafi against his own people" hyperbole.

  • crackerjack

    stupid Americans …………they nerver lear. It seem to be a form of political autism.

    "Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message" http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=2

    • aspacia

      Thanks for the link crackerjack. I suspected as much. One dictator will be replaced with a theocratic leader.

  • Amused

    Besides all of the above , a no fly zone will not buy a victory for the rebels , no matter when it started . The rebels are poorly led , poorly trained and poorly armed . No way will they win without actual air attacks upon the Libyan Army vis-a-vis UN forces [ which usually means us ] . This is all about the EurAbian oil supply , let the Europeans engage the fight , they've got plenty of jet fighter-bombers . Democracy ???? Hasn't anyone learned ANYTHING since 9/11 ??? Islam and Democracy dont mix ….lol..like OIL AND WATER .

  • Gunner57

    Shame on neocons like Moran. Why shouls Americans be losing more lives and more limbs to fight for Muslims.

    We'll get no thanks and more Islam loving jihadists chomping at the bit to kill us infidels.

  • David W

    It appears that most of you are Wussy liberals! … Interested in only yourselves. This group of rebels was discribed by 'Amused' in the same way and words the colonies that became America were characterized. The Europeans back then were amused by our antics and struggles. Are you saying that we have become, or are becoming like the Europeans? If so, how sad for us. For they, back then, were in their prime, at the top of the worldly influences. Then they fell. Are we that fallen, are we (you) that craven? Don't all people deserve to be free?

    • Amused

      Go pack your bags David W , you talk the talk , now go walk the walk ………be a Libyan Freedom fighter. AND …you can be a Yemen Freedom fighter too .

  • Steeloak

    I think most of you missed th point of the article. It's not that Obama should or shouldn't intervene, it's that he does'nt make decisions one way or the other. He is not being a leader! He is continuing his policy of voting present, like he has always done. He has become the ditherer-in-chief. Weaker than Jimmy Carter – so pathetic!

    As far as Libya – what a choice! The devil we know (Gaddafi) vs the devil we don't (probable Muslim Brotherhood Rebels). I don't expect a blossoming of freedom & democracy there. Let's just get it over with quickly and go home, whatever we do.

    • ThomasPains

      We must never forget that Obama is an Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals disciple engaging in a stealth revolution to bring their dream of a socialist utopia to America, remember "fundamentally changing" speech? This man and the people he surrounds himself with our freedom loving Americans greatest enemy because he is inside the gate and subverts from within.

      "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." ~ Cicero

    • Glenn

      You got that right! As long as we have the present party in the whitehouse we would be a lot better off if Hillary had won the primary.

  • American_Flag

    Whatever seems to be the right thing to do in Libiya, almighty President O, our self-proclaimed hero and saviour will do the opposite. As always!

    "Opposite Obamma" is his nickname.

  • Observer

    Unless you are willing to take out his military capabilities all this will do is ensure the death and destruction of any opposition unless you arm and enable them.

    He may not be able to do it by air but if necessary he won't blink if he has to house to house and street to street.

    Be careful what you wish for

  • Questions

    Right you are. Even if the rebels are "good" by Western standards, they would be superseded by Islamic radicals anyway. A realist foreign policy understands that we have no vital interests in Libya because there is nobody worth supporting.

    The prospect of the departure of Kadafy (or however he spells his last name lately) causes me no tears. He has been a narcisstistic thug from Day One. But his replacement, almost assuredly, will be no better. And before he materializes, get set for massive quantities of chaos and bloodshed — in other words, Iraq II.

  • Alex Kovnat

    Here's another angle on the situation in Libya: What if a Pol Pot kind of personality takes over? Would it really be in the best interest of humanity to stand idly by, if a million or more Libyan people were to be killed the way the Khmer Rouge killed that number of Cambodians in the 1975-79 timeframe?

    But those who oppose intervention in Libya have a point. In the 1980's we intervened in Afghanistan with the best of intentions and, the Russians were not exactly boy scouts. But look what happened: The Russians withdrew, and the Taliban set up an awful dictatorship. One wonders if the Afghanistanian people would have been better off if we had not intervened the way we did.

  • BLJ

    Obama needed to get off the pot on this one from the get go. Personally I could care less about Libya, but the POTUS needs to get out in front on matters like these. Golf, NCAA brackets and eating out at chic restaurants can wait.

    When Hillary Clinton shows more leadership that says all that anyone needs to know about the teaching assistant we have in the White House. Good lord!

    • Glenn

      Hillary would detinitly be a better…….Decider.

  • USMCSniper

    Libya’s legitimate leader Moammar Gaddafi has offered amnesty and some other concessions to anti-government rebels who turn in their weapons. In a speech in Tripoli to supporters and foreign reporters, he promised that opponents who renounced violence and gave up their movement would be “forgiven and not pursued. He also stuck to his claim that al-Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters were leading the rebels behind the unrest in his country.

    Sounds like an Arab civil war to me? Why are we even interested let alone involved?

  • Steve Chavez

    Isn't it amazing that the LEFT is calling for the violent overthrow of a government whose leader is responsible for killing DOZENS while they SPIT ON BUSH for overthowing a government whose leader killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS???

    • Amused

      What the hell are you talking about Chavez??? What do you mean "the left " ? It's all you chicken hawks that are screaming for a war . SCREW KADDAFI AND SCREW THE LIBYAN REBELS . NEITHER ONE are our freinds or allies .These are the people who cheered Lockerbie and it's bomber . The only reason anyone's even interested is because of oil . And dont go blaming the left , just look at the remarks piling up like dogsheet here on this blog ….CHICKEN HAWKS man ! Just like ROVE , CHENNEY AND BUSH JR > Democracy has absolutely NOTHING to do with this , it's just muslims doing what they do best -KILLING EACH OTHER . Let'em have at it and we'll deal with whatever's left standing .And if Bush got spit on , it's because HE LIED about WMDs ..and if by chance he himself didn't make up the lie , he embraced it and go Americans killed …and just look at the mess trhat's left there ! You fool .

      • coyote3

        Guess you can't make up your mind whether he lied or not. This is exactly the same thing. At least in Iraq there were U.S. interests in the gulf to protect. Here there are no interests. However, maybe we shouldn't be in either place. Oh, the oil in question is not our, but Europe's. Let them fight for it. This excellent adventure just shows that the left is just as good, or bad, at nation building and intervention and interference as the right.

  • QSuzy

    This move by Obama is as stupid as our invasion of Iraq which accomplished zero. It's interesting that France is leading the charge since 70% of their oil comes from Libya. Let the Arab League and/or African League go in, not US. Besides, I thought we were broke.

  • Yetwave

    What could the tribal rivalry taking place in Libya come up with that would be worse for the world that its present ruler? At this point, Ghadaffi is on a short leash, having shown some contrition after the US led invasion of Iraq. His desire to 'talk peace' in the face of a no-fly imposisition reflects his wariness at over-provoking the west.
    Momo has grown weak in his advancing years. He may be crazy but he's not stupid. His desire is to die in his tent with his empire intact. If he slaps his own people around just long enough to get them in line, there is not adequate will in the 'international community' to depose him once he stops the killing.
    Afterall, the nutless UN and the chimera of the power of the 'international community' have allowed less canny autocrats who are guilty of far more egregious sins against humanity off the hook without consequence.

    • nina

      That's where you are wrong. From what the British said, and they even talked about their army being quite strong, the Europeans, for whateve reason, have decided to do away with Khaddafi. It is difficult to understand their reasoning. The so called killings are a mere pretext. But be as it may, the US has no business taking part in this scheme. Enough!

  • encausticus

    There is no reason for the USA to waste men and assets replacing one tyrant with another. Let France and Italy intervene: they have economic reasons to do so. The USA can no longer be the policeman for the world.

  • Kevin Stroup

    Just brilliant. We are bogged down in Afghanistan and now we are going into Libya too. Just friggin moronic. Why? So we can help the Muslim Brotherhood come into power there? So we can get more young patriots killed doing work that the elites never send there kids to do? We get no oil from Libya, they sell it all to Europe. We do NOT have a dog in this fight. Friggin unbelievable. So some limp-root old politicians can feel like they still matter.

    • Amused

      DAMN RIGHT !

  • USMCSniper

    The UN resolution also authorizes all military actions “short of a ground assault” to help the opposition bring down Gaddafi. So f*&king what!!! The UN is not the US Congress!

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation, that requires the authorization of the Congress.” – Barack Obama Dec. 20, 2007. If it were Bush wanting to use the military to make any regime change anywhere without congressional authorization there would be cries for his impeachment.

  • Amused

    USMCSniper , people like you kill me , evryone bitched and moaned that the Pres. wasn't doing enough , now you're whining about doing too much . Truth is Obama should keep his damn mouth shut as well as the rest of the chicken hawks around here . It's a damn civil war we have no buisiness in ….unless of course you're an oil man .

  • Reason_For_Life

    What is the upside of another war? What will America gain?

    Can anyone seriously believe that the average Libyan will be significantly better off or worse off with a regime change?

    Who will make things better? Who is the Libyan Thomas Jefferson? Where are their Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine?

    Whoever takes over the country will still sell oil, use the money to brutalize the populace and massacre innocent civilians because that is what they do. It is what they have done for a thousand years and no amount of force is going to change that.

  • Amused

    oh boy , the chicken hawks arre cluckjng again . "actual or imminent threat to the nation " ….lol….yea and if you cant find one , you invent one ….like Bush and his WMDs .

    • vlparker

      Yeah, the WMDs that the French and the British and the Germans said were there. I guess the Kurds just decided to gas themselves.

    • coyote3

      Invest one? Obama just did. Sound like he is the ultimate chicken hawk. You can't even make up a U.S. interest for Libya. What is in this for us, is all I want to know?

  • vlparker

    So here we go getting into another Sunni versus Shiite mess. Let them have at it and stay the hell out. Quadaffi (shia) versus the Muslim Brotherhood (sunni). I hope they annihilate each other. There is nothing in Libya worth getting American soldiers killed over.

  • Uncle B

    America, in deep debt to China, actually owned and operated by China. China refused to assume even more American debt, much to Obama's, Timmy Geithner's, dismay. Truth is, America is bankrupt, has a rapidly declining, fiat dollar, rising gasoline prices, rising inflation, cost of living, in spite of the very expensive trouncing they gave Iraq on behalf of the Saudis gasoline prices at the pumps across America on the rise. America has diminishing scientific, engineering, scholastic, accomplishments, especially in comparison to Asia. America too, faces severe pollution dilemmas, where to store nuclear wastes, how to clean drinking water, where to find more fresh water. America currently behind, 39th in world education standards according to Obama's own, shameful admission. America faces a real problem: have Americans bred themselves away from intellectual development, towards physical development, and produced masses of labor suitable for 1950's American Smoke Stack industries? Industries now gone to Asia? Spending even more money abroad, policing the world, is simply out of the question for Americans. Americans must make repairs at home. Had the $650+ Billions of dollars spent on pounding Iraq, been spent on conventional, existing, Solar/Thermal electricity plants throughout the South Western U.S.A., today, Americans would have full employment. Americans would have very cheap, domestic, perpetual, or renewable, if you prefer, clean, radiation free, supply of electrical energy. Americans would have enough cheaper energy to compete safely with a nuclear/electric Asia. Obama did the correct, the logical thing in stepping down from the former Police of the World American position. America simply has too much trouble, expensive troubles, to correct, at home to be spending money on people from other countries.

  • bdouglasaf1980

    I love the majority of comments. The so-called mainstream conservatives have it very wrong on this issue. We need to stay the hell out just like we should have done in Kosovo.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Yusuf al-Qaradawi put a fatwa on Qaddafi’s life. We are basically doing the bidding of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just like we did in Bosnia against the Serbs for the Muhammadans, just like we did in Kosovo for the Muhammadans, and just like Obama is doing today against Israel for the Muhammadans. Indeed, we are ousting a thug, but a largely secular thug, for a Muslim Brotherhood thug. When Muhammadans are killing each other, the last thing we should ever do is intervene.

  • Amused

    Dont hear any chicken-hawks clucking about Yemen ….violence is raging there , people getting killed …..Ooooops ….no oil

    • LibertyLover

      What's with the chicken-hawk references? Seems like you trolls have some sort of fantasy about little children…

      • Amused

        get your mind out of the gutter …I know that might be hard for you . Thinking straight ain't easy when you're a pervert huh ?

        • LibertyLover

          I'm not calling anyone a chicken hawk. That seems to be a favorite pejorative of the left. I'm merely curious about why progressives call people they disagree with by sexually charged tags like teabagger and chickenhawk.

          Sounds like projection to me.

  • Amused

    And the dumbass French stepped in the bucket first , well that figures ….I guess , there are no fighter jets in Saudi Arabia , Jordan , U.A.E , Kuwait ….gee I somehow recall they ALL have F-16's superior to Kaddafi's Air Force.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Who is making the decisions which Islamic thugs we go after and which ones we let off the hook? The UN? The French? The venerable House of Saud? The Gulf States Emirs? Because if the French are leading anything, they are obviously doing it clandestinely at the behest of their Islamic benefactors!

    Is this one world government or something? The UN speaks and we jump to action but in a subordinated fashion? Is this an evolving new world order under the auspices of the Islamic hijacked UN? Does this mean the USA is no longer the world’s hegemon and that it now dances to the tune of the Euroloons, who are under the spell of the Islamic world? Hence, will our military be used as it was in the 90s to wage more jihads for the Islamic world like we did in Bosnia and Kosovo, and will the media follow suit and make the good guys into the villains and the villains into the good guys like it did with respect to the Serbs and is still doing today with respect to Israel?

    I mean why go after Qaddafi and not the ruling Mullahs in Iran who make Qaddafi seem like an amateur and whose people have been revolting for far longer than the people of Libya? Why not the House of Saud that spend billions of dollars annually proliferating the stealth global jihad against all unbelievers? Why not the Gulf States whose emirs supplement the House of Saud? Indeed, what makes Qaddafi persona non-grata but not the leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States? Could someone please explain that to me?

    Not to mention that the last thing the USA should ever do is intervene to stop Muhammadan on Muhammadan violence. Instead, we should seek out further cracks and fissures in the Islamic world to exploit to our advantage.

    • nina

      Bravo!

  • Mr. Mxyzptlk

    And what would the reaction by the current infestation in D.C be if some American "rebels" decided to declare their independence, like if a state seceded? Would military force be used against the "rebels" for force them back in line? Would Obuma have NATO troops kill Americans who don't tow the line? Would he have federal troops kill American rebels. It's been done once; it was called the Civil War. I call it the "First" Civil War. U.S. government hypocrisy is appalling. Secession is the only hope for America.

  • vanislescotty

    The Arab countries have their own airforces. If they wanted a no fly zone, why aren't they taking the lead? Why does it fall upon the US, Britian and France to once again do this? If this is an Arab problem, let them take the lead and we can assist them for a change. If this doesn't work out well, they will just blame us anyway. Its time for them to get involved in their own region. One man's opinion.

    • Amused

      Why ??? Just look at todays news ! U.S. , U.K. and France are attacking positions in Tripoli ! Did you hear ANYTHING about Jordan , Saudi Arabia , or ANY ARAB NATION PARTICIPATING ????
      The West will do the killing and the "participating Arab League Nations " …..will provide "humanitarian aid " …..Iraq all over again .
      Score 1 , for the neo-cons and chicken hawks , we now have THREE wars going on with muslims ….and "we got no money " !!

  • Amused

    But that's ok , let's bust them unions ,and next ? Those good for nothing Social Security and Medi-Care "entitlement recipients " , yea they're running us into the poor house ! No problem , there are 320 million or so peons we can tax , 10% of which we'll give big tax breaks to . S.O.P. for Republican /Conservative ideology . And anyone who complains , especially that "other 54 % of the electorate " ? We brand'em commies , socialists , homosexuals , basketball players and marxists , out to destroy then take over the world !!!
    What a line of sheet ! I want some of those drugs they're on !

  • Amused

    So who's next ? "Our freinds " in Yemen ? You know that place where the govt. catches forgives [after repentence ] and sets free terrorists ? Yea they want democracy there , that's why Al-Queda can direct attacks against us , like Fort Hood , and still have comfortable and safe diggs in Yemen territory .

  • Horatio

    The people of Libya are fighting for freedom – freedom to institute Sharia as their legal system. We should not help them at all. It is anathema to Western Civilization and the fundamental principles that are at the core of the Constitution separating religion and the state.

    At one point I enthusiastically endorsed our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq – I no longer do so once we permitted them to enshrine Sharia Law in their Constitutions.

  • Amused

    …and now , already , there is talk of "boots on the ground " …hmmmm….WHOSE BOOTS ?

  • kafirman

    The US does not face an existential threat from Gaddafi, but from Islam.

    Second, the weapons against such an existential threat are not bullets, but the bully pulpit.

    Let freedom ring. Nullify the impostor Obama. Let me hear you Allen West. The job is for the taking. So take it.

  • Waldemar

    Bismarck famously said "The Balkans are not worth the life of a single German grenadier." Ditto for the ME and American GI's. And where is the standard outrage about the killings of women and children? Where are the good senators Kerry and Durbin? Apparently their outrage is reserved for Republican presidents only. I want Muslims to keep killing Muslims so eventually we can have a world without that barbarism.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Gadaffi does not fit into the image of the Mullahs as they build the Callifate
    and false respectability, Daffy doesn't fit in anywhere but Saturday Night
    Live and maybe soon dead…………Chaos has no rhyme or reason and
    that is what Libya and all of the Muslim States are contending with when
    they do not have Israel as a whipping post to blame all of their failures
    on and easy victims to despoil, evil must have fresh blood.

    No matter what the state of affairs are down the road, America and Israel
    will be the fall guys for Islamo/leftist depredations……………..William

  • wlleee

    if US wants to help people in Libya to fight Gaddafi, why don't they help people in Palestine to fight jews?? such a hypocrite country

  • Truthteller

    Sorry Rick, David Horowitz say we shouldn't be in Libya. Which means, if you're Obama, you lose no matter what you do on this lousy website.