Oh really? And you are a Middle East expert? You speak Arabic, now the culture?

Al Qaida is not a factor in Northern Africa PERIOD. Since you call people Naive, find one genuine expert on the Middle East that disagrees.

There is a strong current of people in Northern Africa who are deeply troubled by Israels treatment of the Palestinian people. Some of these people might be tolerant of violence directed at Israel, not at its allies or at Israelis abroad but directly ... so it is limited. But this too is a minority.

There is a lot of VERY ignorant speculation about the Muslim Brotherhood, primarily from Fox news which is one of the most deeply ignorant channels on Middle East affairs there is. Essentially the Mulim Brotherhood is commited to Democracy but also to Islamic values ... really no different from Religious political organizations in this country. In fact, and perhaps ironically they would find much that they agree about.

Don't just "aren't we the naive ones" ... when you demonstrate ZERO knowledge.

As a point of fact, in ANY confrontation involving MILLIONS of ppl, you could indeed find a handful representing fringe interests - fer crying out loud, NAMBLA contributed to Republican campaigns - should all Americans then assume that Republicants are all of such a persuasion? Funny, how the Faux News microscope finds the hidden flaws in THIS military venture - but was strangely silent or even complicit in the Great Lie that was Bushs' War...

.....you do know they have an entire BRANCH of Al-Qaeda posted just in North Africa right?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-24/world/libya.qaeda.statement_1_libyan-islamic-fighting-group-islamic-maghreb-al-qaeda?_s=PM:WORLD

Your PC liberalism will be the downfall of our society.

PS - At least Bush got Congress' okay to invade Iraq. And before you start with the War Powers Act crap, it pretty clearly states that a President cannot act against a sovereign nation without the consent of Congress unless we are currently under attack or threatened with imminent attack.

Geoffreyf, are YOU a Middle East expert? Do you speak Arabic, know the culture?

Thought not, but hey, if this administration says no al-Qaeada, then that is more than enough for the "useful idiots" in America.

BTW this administration also said that the stimulus would not allow unemployment to go beyond 7%, that the health care legislation would not add to the deficit, and that inflation/stagnation was not possible when unemployment is at 9%. They NEVER get anything wrong.

Never mind the evidence surfacing all over of al-Qaeda backing ang fighting with these rebels.........

Mike o, odd how you support Obama taking out an "evil dictator" (one that has helped the U.S. fight the taliban and al-Qaeda I might add), but still hate Bush for taking out Saddam the "evil dictator". I guess it is only cosher if your messia does it? At least Bush had the decency to go before Congress and get approval before sending our troops into war......

Geoff, you are the one with the ignorant speculation if you are so sure that radical Muslims are not behind the rebels. Frankly I would bet that you don't know squat about who they really are. And I do not watch Fox news so you and Mike can save that BS.

ITSa Madworld, you are right about Mike's hypocrisy. But he is just following his leader Odumbo who defines hypocrisy in his 180 degree about face from all the crap he spouted about Bush and Iraq to his laughable argument that attacking Iraq is about humanitarian issues. What a pile of crap. It is about Europe's supply of oil and that's it, unless it is to support his Muslim buddies over there. My nephew just came home wounded from Afghanistan and may loose his arm trying to fight Obumas Muslim buddies. Got shot trying to cover his buddy who was attempting to rescue another solider who got shot by a sniper. When he stepped of the jeep the sniper shot him, a medic. The Potus is a liar and a fraud, and should be impeached.

For the record, I have no problem with Obama's decision to go into Libya.

However...

When I see Cindy Sheehan camped out in front of the White house and code pink disrupting Obama's speeches, then I'll know the Bush bashing was sincere.

But until then, it proves their protests were unpatriotic and simply agenda driven.

And, if it was purely political, to trash the president during time of war, I say...

The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. This is truly, truly shameful.

Obama says they are not al queda,just good muslim boys from the local mosque. As for the video it is just a Sautrday night live spoof.

*Just mark my words – after all the help we give these Muslims – we get 9-11 and other mini 9-11s. Remember, Osama bin Laden was armed and supported by the United States of America in the war in Afghanistan against Russia.

The chorus of anti-Semites keep complaining about the couple of billions in aid that we give Israel and keeping mum about the hundreds of billions + Americans’ lives that are wasted in Iraq, Afghanistan (bonus: drugs), Yemen and now Libya.

Now, Israel, on the other hand, collaborates and shares technology, science and medicine with America. In Israel no one burns American flags nor shouts ‘down with America’. So, please everyone – look deep down into yourselves, be honest & real!

The people fighting against the regime are people who are fed up. My friends are there fighting for a better future. Not Al-qaida. They are tired of being repressed and want more out of life. My US friends have been waiting 20-30 years for something to happen, and now that it has they have left thier homes and jobs here in the US to help their families and countrymen to remove this dictator. I am glad the NATO is bombing the crap out of Quadiffi, but I wish the rebels would be better armed and trained. These are not soliders, just fed up people. God help them win.

Of course the administration will deny this. It sure would make them look bad if true. Probably is. But NBC would never admit it, even if concrete irrefutable proof came out.

Geoff -

I don't trust the Muslim Brotherhood, and I'm happy to explain why.

This is an excerpt from a Muslim Brotherhood Strategic Memorandum on North American Affairs, which was obtained during the 2007 Holy Land Trial investigating terrorist funding.

This document talks about, among other things, the "Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is."

It also says this, which is extremely disturbing to me:

"The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the means. The Ikkwan [the Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes...."

And I did not find this on Fox News.

You can read the whole document here. The first part is Arabic, but an English translation follows.

Does no one find it really funny that Dexter-morgan is spouting off hate filled rhetoric while accusing Republicans of being "Goose-steppers", aka Nazis? He is no different then Adolf Hitler himself standing at the pulpit screaming about the jews, gays, and blacks, but instead he screams about the Neocons, the "Teabaggers" (pssst That's not their name), and any other crap he can spout about anyone who doesn't fall lock step in line with what he believes. Irony.

There are concerns about the makeup of the rebel forces, they (the commander of NATO forces and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday) acknowledged, but not significant ones so far. The problem is, very little is known about the rebels.

WTF! Because you don't know it's not a concern just a problem?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking during a press briefing in London after a meeting with allies on future actions in Libya, says there is no specific information that al-Qaida is involved in the Libyan opposition.

Is there specific info al-Qaida is not involved?

You are absolutely about your statement: "That Libyan Rebels are NOT Al Qaeda Sympathizers"

You know this how??? from some book you read???

I'll bet ya there are more "extremists" here in the good old U.S. of A than in Libya; and not of the Arab variety... I think they're called Christians...

Nikos,

Naive, is the word that comes to mind.

The question raised in this article is a good one. One that we had the answer to in Iraq (yes, by the way). If the answer is yes then we must treat Libya like Iraq and Afghanistan (regime change and replace with democracy). If we don't, we will have to do it later. Imagine if you will; had Iraq been treated with the same casual attitude we are displayin now in Libya. What do you think Iraq would look like today? Be honest.

We must never, never, never again half-a$$ at war (Vietnam anyone). Either go in and mean it, or stay out!! A wishy washy confused president does the world no good.

Nikos Retsos : Professor I fail to see where the term "nerd" applies. Note:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd

Observer21: Every civil war has people of many belief sets picking one of two sides. People assume, in our civil war that the southern soldiers were slave holders. While actually, some historians put the figure of slave ownership for southern soldiers at around 30%. People also assume slave ownership was exclusively in the south. Which it was not, but far , far more widespread in the South.

I use our history, to point out that there is no way you can say EITHER side is TOTALLY Devoid of AL Qaeda, Rapists, thieves or various low life scum.

What i do know is that Gadhafi killed innocent AMERICANS over Lockerbee. And I do hope it's one of our bombs that ends him and the slimy bomber the Scots released earlier.

Rebels in the battlefield are motivated by listening to recordings made by Al Qaeda. But only idiots and suckers would believe that to be important

The big problem is that the US, UN, and NATO are all backing a rebel group that they know almost nothing about. Have you ever heard of going from the frying pan into the fire. Gadhafi may be an SOB but in recent years he has not caused any problems on the international front and has improved the lives of most of the people of Libya. Libya has the highest per capita GDP and the highest per capita income in the Arab world. I am no supporter of Gadhafi, but there are far worse people out there that could take control if/when Gadhafi falls. Yes, he is an authoritarian ruler who does not tolerate people that question him but history is filled with leaders like that. It is entirely possible that Gadhafi's regime could be replaced by an Islamic theocracy or that Libya could descend into decades of inter-tribal warfare.

The UN resolution authorized a no-fly zone to protect civilians. This is also what the Arab League agreed to. The current operations are going much further than this. The NATO planes are not just enforcing the no-fly zone and hitting anti-aircraft batteries. The plane are attacking Gadhafi's ground forces, no matter where they are. This amounts to picking sides in what is essentially a Libyan civil war. It is a mistake for the western world to pick sides in an internal conflict like this. Should Libya collapse into tribal warfare, the west will be blamed. We are taking part in a rebellion to take down the central government in Libya when there is no central authority to come in and take it's place. The rebels are not a united group and, once Gadhafi has fallen, could likely turn on each other in a battle to fill the power vacuum that results. The current leadership council was not elected by anyone, they appointed themselves to the position. There is no guarantee that their authority will be accepted by anyone outside of Benghazi once Gadhafi falls. We are making a huge mistake interfere in in this civil war and should let the people of Libya decide their own fate. It appears that just as many people, if not more, support Gadhafi as oppose him. If the majority of Libyans want Gadhafi to stay, what right does the west have to help a group of rebels who do not seem to have the support of the majority overthrow him.

Does al-Qaeda, or more appropriately LIFG, have a presence among the Libyan rebels? No doubt. But it would be pretty silly to think that al-Qaeda is somehow running the show, when they haven't even been able to successfully co-opt LIFG.

Is it a risk to trust the Libyan people to establish a better government than the one they had under Gadhafi. Sure it is. But the odds that the new government will be worse than Gadhafi have to be pretty small.

For the most part, the people raising the alarm about al-Qaeda running the show are the same people who would have condemned President Obama as being in Gadhafi's back pocket had the US not intervened. most of the criticism is cynical and disingenuous.

While I agree with the sentiment that wars should be fought to win or not at all, the current US policy is a prudent and flexible one. It is neither confused, nor wishy washy. The US role is to lead the international community in a concerted response that leaves most of the fighting up to the people of Libya, who will then have the responsibility to build their own government, whatever that will be.

"Ghadafi said" is really irrelevant. He also said that they were youth that were given LSD every morning.

Nikos - glad you're retired. We don't need anyone like you teaching our children. The liberal media stoked the fires on college camouses to have the Shah of Iran removed, and look at the result. Hillary the tank and the U.S. have no clue as to who is running the rebel movement. So why is she supporting them? You cannot change stupidity.

The big problem is that the US, UN, and NATO are all backing a rebel group that they know almost nothing about.

They might not know a lot, but you can be certain that is more than "almost nothing".

Gadhafi may be an SOB but in recent years he has not caused any problems

It's pretty hard to give Gadhafi a green light for being a good guy. He scrapped his nuclear weapons program only when threatened. Ditto for international terrorism.

The UN resolution authorized a no-fly zone to protect civilians.... The current operations are going much further than this.

Take a look at UN Resolution 1973. There is a reason it authorizes "all necessary measures" to protect civilians apart from, and in addition to, imposition of a no-fly zone; and refers to the no-fly zone itself only as "an important element" in the protection of civilians.

This amounts to picking sides in what is essentially a Libyan civil war.

Correct.

commonsense, do you remember we went to a war because of 'weapons of mass destruction'? jajajaja

Of course there are anti-american terrorist sympathizers in with the rebels. And the White house wants to back them and give them weapons? I guess that makes Obama an anti-american terrorist sympathizer too. Birds of a feather....

We can't jump to conclusions, like we did in Iraq. Who knows what lurks behind these uprisings. Bringing up the issue is not a nerdy thing to do, just a legitimate argument, like the ones made against the Iraq war...WE KNOW THAT NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS, BUT JUST LIKE IN THE US, THER ARE SOME...

Of course Al Qaida is driving the unrest. They are driving the unrest in all the countries in the middle east.

Democracy? A distant fifth or sixth......or further.

We have truly incompetent people in our White House. The world knows it.

nikos you are an idiot. i am 55 and a usmc vet and NEVER in my life has the "arab league" called on an infidel nation to do anything in an arab country except LEAVE! the day after mighty france and the gutless west launched their unlawful attack on a soverign nation the "league" reversed course and said the attacks went too far. well, how bout that? iran and the muslim brotherhood are behind all current mid east BS just like he said. what do you think washington would do if 250000 men with guns jumped in trucks headed for dc shooting up every police station and federal building they passed? i'll tell you. tanks would roll, airplanes would launch, and every n'tl guard unit and swat team would be activated. they would, in Kadafy's words - KILL them all. by the way, i saw the elephant in lebanon in the early 80's. have you seen it?

This is stupid...the song that was played is our graduation song ( nasheed) and it talks about the favor of our parents ) Garyounis Medical university 2005 in Benghazi Libya I have the recording....You think you know but you are ignorant, who tells you it is Alqaeda song .

To: JS in SD

No Libya does not have the highest per capita income in the Arab world. There is Qatar, Kuwait, U.A.E., Behrain, Saudi Arabia and Oman. $101,000 in Qatar is a little more than $14,900 in Libya.

Somehow I don't think we'll hear the truth on this one...between the liberal press and the Obama spin machine, the facts will be spun to suit their political agenda. If it were a clear cut no - then we wouldn't be publishing opinions, we'd be publishing facts!

There probably islamic fundamentalists among the Libyan people, just as there are christian fundamentalists in America. When all is said and done with I think the Libyan people will remember what Western intervention meant for their lives. Just as the French assisted us during our independence, a debt we paid in full 200 years later.

You have got to be blind. Do you not read or listen before spouting? Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are both praising the actions of the US and NATO. Ya think they may have a vested interest in us doing their work for them? Get a clue.

I spent much of the past month in Benghazi shooting a documentary. I've interviewed many members of the opposition and only one was someone who had fought in Afghanistan, and not necessarily for Al Qaida. Out of over 300 "rebels" I met, he was the only one that had a radical past and he wasn't even a fighter in Libya.

In general, I found most "rebels" to simply be people who wanted to have a decent and profitable life in a free society. Many had gotten their advanced degrees in the U.S. or Europe. I really believe that the entire rumor of Al Qaida within the "rebels" started with Qaddafi saying that. You also have to realize that Qaddafi was also stating that they were doing LSD. I traveled all over eastern Libya with these people and really enjoyed lots of laughter and topical discussions. Like most of us in the West, they consider Qaddafi a mad man. Period. And they want to get rid of him and live in a democratic society.

I put quotations around the word "rebel" for one reason. In most ways they are not rebels. They were protesters who were fired on by Qaddafi's gangsters. They don't have real training in how to fight, they just have it in their heart. I was very inspired by them.

Mickey Grant

Okay so where in the hell did they get the weapons they have? Please enlighten as I would like to know more about these people. AQ is praising the US for the action. Ya think they approve cause they want to be the good guys?

Thanks for that, Grant.

As for the rest of you, haven't you ever heard the old axiom: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

Sort of like the "Sunni Awakening" that we utilized to help stabilize Iraq.

Is there some Al-Qaida presence in Libya? Almost definitely-- but do they have the numbers and capacity to overtake a popular revolution run by political protesters? Unlikely. That's like saying that The Animal Liberation Front has the capacity to overtake PETA, or that the Black Panthers are capable of taking over the whole of the NAACP. It's just too far fetched to be practical. For the moment, the two groups ideologies align, but that won't last. Islamic extremism is generally viewed negatively by those seeking to institute a free society (which the protest leaders have voiced many times).

Qaddafi's soldiers either ran or defected. That's where they got the few weapons they now have. It really helps if you've been there and spent time with these people. Nothing can replace that.

WMG-21, your analogy about the Black Panthers is spot-on. Two jack@sses skulk around a voting booth and all of a sudden there is "rampant voter fraud" to get Obama elected. Now we are to believe that Obama is personally arming Al Qaeda cells in Libya? If I was the sort to take ignorance seriously my head would pop off.

AQ is praising the US for the action. Ya think they approve cause they want to be the good guys?

You know, radical Islamists were also happy that Mubarak was removed from Egypt. Since apparently whatever Al Qaeda wants we must do the exact opposite, we should have supported Mubarak.

OH NOES, there might be some terrorists in Libya! We should let the pro government forces there just kill all of the rebels then, even if there's one terrorist anywhere in that country we should just let the government kill all the innocent civilians too. Can't take the chance after all! Since this is our reasoning we should also lockup all Muslim people in America on the chance there are terrorists here as well. Even better, it may be best to just attack every Muslim country in case there's a terrorist anywhere, and also destroy the mosques worldwide. Can't take any chances can we?

/sarcasm

This isn't difficult to figure out. This is a predominantly Muslim country, just like Egypt. Egypt started out with peaceful student protests. It turned violent when the Muslim Brotherhood got involved. Now, there is a lot of talk of the Muslim Brotherhood on the rise. The Muslim Brotherhood has weapons supplied by.... who...???? Any guesses?

Now, we have the "rebels" in Libya who already have weapons. Any guess who supplies them? Do "peaceful" people just happen to have weapons and know how to fight?

More hints. Iran had protesters. Any weapons there? Who won?

To spell it out, the radical Islamists are on the move and pouncing on any movement against any regime that wasn't an "Islamic" regime. This isn't that difficult. If they are violent and well trained, they are Islamic thugs. What's not to get?

I have little faith in any US intelligence gathering orgainization, especially reports from the middle east. History has proven such reports and actual events never seem to know each other, much less ever be close to accurate. Our real intelligence always seems to reveal itself after we have acted upon the wrong information. Here, I for one, will hold my nose with one hand and my crotch with the other, all the while hoping we are not involving ourselves in another hellish hornets nest, for which by now, we are so infamously known.

Yes they are. And do some research into what is happening in Egypt now. I think your eyes may be opened a bit. We didn't support Mubarak. Don't think we should have. He wasn't prepared to do what Daffy was and that was fight back. Just wait and see. Egypt will soon become what AQ and the MB want them to. They are indeed the push behind the move all over the ME and North Africa. Do ya think all those peoples jsut got up one morning and said "I think it may be time for a change." simultaneously? Like the Honda commercial says, "I'm mister opportunity and I'm knockin".

Within a short period of time Islamists will be running Lybia, at the most a year or so, and we will have gone from the frying pan into the fire.

And Amen witch. You got it.

Let's hope we're not trading the Devil we know for the Devil we don't know, and giving them access to $Billions from oil revenues.

"Does al-Qaida play a big role in Libya revolt? U.S. doesn't think so"

This sure doesn't sound reassuring! Maybe the administration should DETERMINE, if al-Qaida plays a big role in the Libyan revolt or not.

This is not our fight and we need to get out of Libya, etc. US govt, are you monitoring these posts? I hope you're listening because we want our tax dollars to stay here fighting for the US domestically.

We're just going to have to let the alleged "experts" handle the situation. Whether the rebels in Libya are Al Qaeda backed or not is moot at this point. It is more than likely that there are AQ sympathizers in the rebel forces (just as there are probably Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. in there as well.) We have two choices as I see it. Kill all of them and let God or Allah sort them out later or let them fight each other and hope that the good guys win. Kind of a Catch-22 I know, but do we really have any other choices?

The way I see it, we have no interests in Libya and no proof al-Qaida isnt involved. Get the hell out! If some Muslims want to kill each other, let them. Not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists have been Muslim. As a Muslim would say, "Allah willed it".

On C-Span the other night officials were being asked about the rebels and the gentleman speaking said they did not know a whole lot about them but were obtaining more info about the ones they were dealing with. I would think you would want to know a great deal before you go backing them and giving them weapons.

Tom-Fully agree that somehow the President has selective humanitarian motivation. Could it be, dare I ask, that he is helping the French, British and Italians so they can continue receiving Libyan oil after all this is over and done with and the poor locals go back to living in their tents?

Its very simple and I don't know why it's so hard to understand. This was a UN measure. Brought to the UN by France and voted on and passed. As well as NATO. It's why France has been the ones to shoot down about 8 aircraft so far. We didn't select this over other conflicts. But we are a UN member. Of it passes then we are involved. Not to mention Gadaffi has murdered his share of Americans in his terrorist campaigns as well

I agree that it is a UN operation now, but look at the sequence of events and the pressure brought by us moving assets to use immediately while the agreement process lagged. And also remember who bears the greatest cost as we are the money behind Nato, Cento and especially the UN. We had every opportunity to take action in other African humanitarian needs but did not (I have lived in Africa) if we use Lbya as the model, intervening in a civil war than we set the precedent of obligation to do so in the future. The conflicts brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union are another examplle of necessary military force to stop civil war and genocide, and between then and now there have been conflicts we chose to ignore.

Isn't NATO calling the shots now?

In Houston: Your handle should be REALIST :-)

The Arabs are killing the protesters in Bahrain. Should we go against our friends or let them slaughter the 'rebels' from Bahrain?

This country is not "Owned and Operated" by NATO or the UN. We can and should opt out if we don't agree with the resolution. Just like every other country does. Then we could stand back and see how well UN fairs without us for a change. We don't need to be involved in every incident in the world. I know it sounds shallow, but we don't need this. We have Iraq, Pakistan, DPRK, Mexico, Libya, and the only place worthy of our efforts, Japan. We need to fully engage, or get the hell out. War is not a PC activity. We need to drop the BS "rules of engagement", kick their sandy asses and move to the next issue. Or pull our troops out, seal our boarders and help Japan. Other than that we are wasting lives (our soldiers and their civilian populations) for no good reason. Because if we don't win, everybody looses.

Patriot, I couldn't agree more, but you're dealing with a community organizer playing at being president, so in over his head that he doesn't know which way is up and a secretary of state whose idea of conflict resolution is screaming and throwing lamps at someone's head. Where does that leave the US? Pretty screwed until 2012. Make sure we all get out and VOTE!!

What is so hard for people to understand that Obama is following the wishes of the UN when he sent military acting into Libya? He is not doing this alone, he is assisting the NATO forces to keep civilians from being slaughtered. Anyone throwing politics into this issue are simply politicians and we all know what politicians are don't we.

Oh they are. Who do you think stirred the pot in the first place? Do you really think that the peoples of all of the nations protesting right now got up one morning and simultaneously thought "think it's time to protest the gubment"? Much influence from the outside.

Larry... I would far prefer that Mr. Obama would follow the wishes of the United States via their representatives in Congress rather than going off half-cocked, breaking OUR laws.

So he is "following the wishes of the UN" rather than the wishes of the citizens of the United States? So he is "assisting NATO," to keep "civilians" (aka rebels to put it as kindly as it gets), from being slaughtered, instead of thinking of the civilian slaughters resulting from the hot war he is starting?

YES... OUR PRESIDENT is starting another WAR without our input!

You think the rebels are not responsible for the "slaughter of civilians"? Think again. This is only Libya, one country's INTERNAL civil war. There is no attack on anyone outside its borders, let alone in the west.

Further, we have yet to hear any agenda from the rebels (except the recent in-put to them from Al-Qaeda). Their cause is a mystery. Getting rid of Quadaffi is only a first step. The next steps, if they are successful, are those we ought to be concerned about, especially if they might pose a threat to an expansion of Middle East conflict.

Adhering to our Constitution is not Politics, Larry; nor is following the wishes of Congress as is mandated before taking military action against another country called Politics. It is called our nation's survival. And I should add, Survival with Honor and Integrity.

We are, in case you don't know it, a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. All the people. And Congress represents us. Mr. Obama chose to by-pass our wishes whether they be pro or con his military intervention, and for that I will not forgive him.

if Libyan rebels are Al Quaida they'd be very brazen..Al Quaida Loves to Credit themselves with their dirty missions, this is NOT so in Libya....

You know jeeesus there is such a thing as "changing tactics" to acheive a goal. Done in sports all the time.

Even shills for Obama get sick of the incompetence. When is your level reached?

Hey, this is Obama's primary shill network reporting this possibility.

Hey, you people are idiots or politicians. Either way that makes you a liar since MCNBC reports the truth...unlike FOX.

Hey johnbirch42, your comment would probably have merit if it were comprehensible. As far as only congress having the authority to authorize anything...That would make the actions of Ronald Reagan illegal since he bombed Libya, attacked Grenada, and invaded Panama. Get a life.

Larry, and GWBush waged an illegal war against Iraq.

Thomas, I wasn't going to get into the Bush fiasco unless dragged into it. It's true that Bush used tactics that border on criminal but he did have the authorization from congress to use force, it just wasn't suppose to last ten years. What's hypocritical is the hawks now wanting an end game from Obama but never once asked Bush for his end game.

no Larry, little boy bush DID NOT have authorization from congress for 6 months. means him and every person in any military unit that went to iraq were war criminals. the law is the law.

Bravo... Sorry, both Bush and Reagan followed the then-existing mandate of working with Congress.

Think outside the box. Or you may be in one in very short order. The answer is yes.

The answer is absolutely yes! The muslim brotherhood, who also killed Sadat, is aligned right with, if not a direct part of, alQaida. We DO NOT want these idiots in charge of Libya

NO!

We DO NOT want these idiots in charge of Libya

Well, you got them now.

This article is no indication that the folks in charge didn't figure out beforehand that there is no significant Al Qaeda content in the rebel movement. There are nuts in every country, including our own, so it should be no surprise that somewhere in Libya one can find Al Qaeda sympathizers. Heck, we found some in Pennsylvania... is that supposed to mean we write off all of PA as well?

This commitment, much in contrast to those of the last administration, appears to have been thoughtfully considered and assessed before action was taken.

21st wrote

"This commitment, much in contrast to those of the last administration, appears to have been thoughtfully considered and assessed before action was taken".

Are you being sarcastic? Nobody, on the left or the right, believes that. Nobody, honest or with half a brain that is.

re-post

For those Bush bashers to consider:

Ask yourself a very pertinent question. Who is responsible for the recent desire of Middle Easterners to throw off their oppressive dictators? If you are honest you will say that this is, and was, the Bush doctrine, it was his vision!! How it will turn out; I'm not so positive about. I do not trust that the general Middle East Muslim street is up to democracy (but that is a different argument).

President Barack Obama should have praised G.W. for his vision instead of lamely attempting to show how "this operation" was so much different than Iraq.

The only differences I see are:

1) Our Libya coalition is smaller

2) Libya lacks congressional approval

3) Ghadafi was on the U.N, Humanitarian Panel a few months prior while Saddam had a list of U.N. mandates against him a mile long and years in the making.

4) Ghadafi has killed his thousands (and probably would have killed more), but Saddam killed hundreds of thousands (at one point using WMD's on his own people)

5) Saddam attacked his neighbors and was a threat to the region (oil) with a substantial military. Ghadafi not so much, and certainly not a threat to us (Gates)

I read and interesting quote today:

"But were the hundreds of thousands found in mass graves in Iraq any less worthy?"

I supported the operation in Iraq (as most Americans did) and still do. And I support the operation in Libya. My reservations are wrapped up in our wishy washy commander. At least Bush was all in. That is the only way we should ever fight, period (There's your Vietnam comparison). Go all in or stay home, this lukewarm stuff makes me ill.

There is hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, but I have to say; This one (Iraq, Libya) is all yours on the left

uh, tod, among many differences between iraq and libya are a "minor" ground invasion of iraq, and how bush claimed that we were threatened by nuclear/bio weapons from saddam. Quite a difference I'd say, I don't know how you missed those obvious ones.

Tod -

I think the what started the dominos falling was Tunisia, not Iraq. As much as you'd like to think that the Bush doctrine triggered Tunisia, do you really think that anyone in any country is looking at Iraq right now and saying "Gee, I wish our country was like them"?

A key difference you left out: I don't remember half of Iraq asking us to join an overthrow that they started. I remember a lot of American boots on the ground in Iraq, and boots that had to avoid IEDs planted by a people who didn't want us there.

I too supported the operation in Iraq, that is, until I realized that the Bush folks bought my and our Congress's support with lies about what they "knew", were capable of persecuting fellow Americans who were merely reporting truths that conflicted with their storyline, and were willing to commit us to a war that cost us dearly in lives and dollars on nothing but pure bravado.

Bush, Clinton, England, the U.N..... Gadz WMD is such a tired, pathetic argument. Also please tell me something brainiac, had we gotten rid of Saddam, using the same methods we are using to get rid of Ghadaffi (Obama's words), what do you think Iraq would look like today? Can you say terrrorist state with the biggest army in the middle east. Big picture thinking is so foreign to you lefty's.

"Bush lied 1000's died" yeah heard that one before, get a new song. The world sang the WMD song right along with Bush, but somehow only Bush and Cheney are now responsible. Keep on revising history, cause its the only way your going to change the "truth" of your ridiculous argument.

I know G.W.Bush was right in sending our troops to Iraq.Heres why; United States was under attack 911, Remember what use to be the TWIN TOWERS? besides, its in the King James version of the Holy Bible,[Revelation] the last book in the new testiment.

Like GWBush did?

marylyn,

911 and Iraq, Bush did not seriously link the two, nor should you. King James, Revelation and the Twin Towers huh? I've read/studied the book of Revelation in the King James, NKJ and the NAS multiple times in totality and have found no reference to the Twin Towers, but do enlighten us please with a reference.

JBir,

as usual, your incoherent overstatements fall under the category of completely ignorant worthless blather.

21st - You are correct. NOT. Well thought out. And why not. When AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood praise what you are doing, you may want to rethink it. Even last night BO said we are still fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and at the same time disregards the fact that they approve of bringing down Daffy. For what do you think? So they can move in and influence the new Govco coming in. Just look what they are doing in Egypt the last couple of weeks.

Tod, yes I wish President Obama had not made that blunt remark about the Iraq war and its implication

about George W. Bush because he will be vindicated in the Middle East down the road. And I am

convinced Saddam later moved the weapons of mass destruction to Syria for housekeeping. Otherwise,

a superb speech by the president. Phyllis PS Two towers in Isaiah 30 and I did link the two most

definitly.

Saddam moved the WMDs to correction: SYria for safekeeping. Isaiah 30, Old Testament, for the

two towers and yes I believe this is a connection to 9/11. .

Phyllis and Marylyn,

here is the reference I assume you are reffering to in Isaiah;

"And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every high hill, [3] rivers and streams of waters in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall"

I don't know who is teaching you that this is a reference to The Twin Towers in New York, but they, and you, are wrong. You may not search the Bible for a word that fits your prophetic world view and then declare it to be fullfilled Biblical prophecy. The reference has to do with Syria, the nation of Israel and a people who have been "lifted up" in pride who will fall. Silly Christians who blindly follow a silly fools teachings make silly comments. Case and point Harold Camping's latest end of the world dates. Try listening to some responsible Christian teachers from now on.

The exact same reasons??? The two situations couldn't be more different. No one in Iraq was asking us to attack Saddam Hussein. No other country was willing to lead the charge, to say nothing of even joining the effort. I didn't hear Obama say anything about WMD, nor "mushroom clouds". Bush was the worst POTUS ever, and the epic damage he wreaked upon this country was criminal.

The iraq war was sold to the US based on a 'threat' of nuclear and biological WMDs. No mention of that so far from obama. Try to keep up, would you.

21st century deaf and blind man

You never heard President Clinton mention Saddam and WMD's? No other country joined in the effort in Iraq? You and your ignorance are criminal!

JH, I am quite aware of the coalition that helped us and continues to help us in Iraq. My words were badly chosen. What I meant was that the countries that joined us were in it because of pull from the US rather than because of their own initiative, as we're seeing with the actions of France and the Brits today, who were proceeding whether we were in or not.

dubya&co really stuck us good. People are fooled by these people. The Repukes are NOT looking out for Joe Public. If ur name is KOCH you got a direct line to the GUV. Wat a jerk off.

Are not the people in control of Iraq Pro- Iranians?

21st,

So let me get this straight, you respect France and England (oil motivated) for their independent conscience toward removing the recent U.N. humanitarian Ghadafi (a nobody on the middle east stage) from power. But you disrespect Bush for having the same conscience toward a man who gased his own people, who most believed had WMD's (including former presidents), who murdered 100's of thousands of his own countrymen, who had multiple continuing U.N. mandates against him over a past decade, and attacked neighboring nations (one our ally) with the largest army in the middle east. Is that your argument?

what "concrete information" do you want them to have? names, addresses, phone numbers of every rebel fighter? How is he "going blindly" forward when there is evidence that al quida is not running the show there? or was adm. stravdis lying or something?

"vermont" - It's called INTEL, and we damn well better know who we are fighting with and against, what we are getting ourselves into, and how the conflict will be concluded (i.e., what will be considered a "win" or a "successful outcome") BEFORE agreeing to be a part of this "coalition" and supplying manpower, war craft, weaponry and millions/billions of dollars. Anything less would be reckless and dangerous. It's amazing to think that our president would not absolutely DEMAND to know these answers before engaging the U.S. in another country's civil war.

It would be amazing if in a country the size of Libya you didn't find some people who were Al Qaeda sympathizers. We have found a few in our own United States, one of whom was a blond blue-eyed woman from the suburbs of Philadelphia. We also have Nazis, Klansmen, and other forms of extremists in our midst. We would think it was stupid if folks in other countries painted all Americans with the same brush.

The blonde blued woman was no doubt a liberal .

Perhaps they are sympathizers and Hillary had better have her act together before she starts arming them and providing advisers for them.

Frankly Franky it was in an interview with the British press that the commander of rebel forces in Libya admitted that his fighters had ties to al quida and that he himself had fought US forces in afghanistan. Blaming fox news is the prattle of the simple minded.

did adm stravdis also lie? Just curious if you are willing to accuse the US military leadership of lying also?

beanne: If the rebels were truly AQ, then why would the president pull the wool over our eyes. We have been fighting them all over the globe. Your statement makes no sense. But you never do.

Seem to remember a statement made on one of the Sunday morning shows to the effect of "we have no interests to defend in Libya".

i'm sure islamic fighters are "involved" in libya? So what..as long as they aren't leading it and going to "conquer" libya and turn it into another afghanistan, which so far there is zero evidence of.

So, hawker, do we support harsh dictators who rule by force and therefore turn even more people against us and more likely to want to fight us? What, exactly, do we do in the middle east? Throw away our principles completely and work AGAINST democracy?

I hate to break this news to Vermont man, but we have been propping up middle east dictators for decades. Does Mubarek ring a bell. Get real man from Vermont !

vermontguy

The US was a strong backer of Sadaam Hussein when he overthrew the previous Iraqi government. We supported him, sold him arms and helped him fight off the Iranians. We pretty much turned a blind eye when he started his poison gas warfare against the Kurds, his own countrymen.

Look where that got us.

The rebels in Libya may or may not be terrorists in the making, we should have been a little more concerned about finding that out. Would it have hurt the US to follow the lead of other UN and NATO countries like China, Russia and Germany by sitting this one out?

You have to decipher what "rebels" indicates, the term is thrown about too loosely when journalists rush to print but can't wait for clarification of who was involved, same with "insurgent"-got to watch out for those current buzzwords.

At least k-to the daffy kept a lid on the alqaida /taliban types .

lol, more of your vague "rebels are LINKED to AQ" posts. Yawn. EVERY group is "linked" to AQ in some fashion in the middle east.

You got that last sentence right vermontguy

There's no cause for Hillary Clinton to lie on this issue. The U.S. govt. is being open about AQ involvement.

Castro said he was not a communist. You can't believe anyone.

Doe some research Oh No - the U.S. did go after this guy. And - most would believe their own President (Bush or Obama) - as opposed to a Muslim Leader - or - some Media Outlet with its own "ax to grind".

WE did. If u recall the USAF rubbed out one of his kids trying to kill him. You don't recall that do you?

We did, just missed him!!!!! Bad intel said he was present, thats why he stays in tents most of the time, they are more survivable in a blast, less containment of the pressure wave.

Ghadaffi was given a visa to speak at the UN. He was allowed into this country. Obama didn't have a problem with that.

oh no you're an a$$

Gofins, what makes him an ass? That he's right and smarter than you? Ok, off to bed you go and no supper either. Don't forget to brush. You got school in the morning.