"[A]ngry, irritated, and sad over our action in Libya.
We are now several days into the bombing campaign, and all we have is confusion--oh, yes, and death. Our superb military have, as we all knew they would, quickly established a No-Fly Zone. Was there any doubt they could do that? Now, what? We still have no end game, no exit strategy, no answer to the question, "How do we know when we've won?" Instead, we have bombing.
President Obama has said Qaddafi must go. OK. So we're going to target him? Apparently not, except when we do, but not really. Have we gone bear hunting with the idea of wounding the bear? Who are the rebels? Does anybody really know? Who's in charge of the rebels? Anybody? What are their goals? The US wants to pass command and control, so to whom? Will it be NATO? Who provides the bulk of NATOs resources and capabilities? One guess, and the answer is not the UK, France, Italy, or Spain . . . It's a bit like arguing whether a Ford is better than a Mercury. Same factory, folks. Will it be some other harebrained scheme for collective control that will leave the US with the responsibility but not the authority? No answers, so instead we have bombing.
Above all, however, the administration has not defined our interests. What was so pressing about Libya to excuse the manner in which we got involved? Aren't the people leading the charge into the Libyan desert the same ones who spent years deriding the idea of a threat from Saddam? No answers, so instead, we have bombing.
Obama and his hopeless coterie must understand that war must form part of a policy, it is not just mindless, bored vandalism. Meanwhile, we will just keep bombing until we think of something to do . . .."
Sigh . . . our King Obama and his Court so like what was said about the Bourbon kings, "They never forget, but they never learn."
Or as Nancy Pelosi might say, "We must bomb Syria to know what is in Syria." We are about to find out.