The Telegraph.co.uk reports that the story that all the "coalition" was doing in Libya was protecting the innocent from a massacre cannot be defended. The "coalition" has likely been in league with the "rebels" all along, and was forced to act when, to general surprise, the government refused to cave. This report follows yesterday's Telegraph report that the "rebels" contain a significant al-Qaeda contingent, as Col. Qaddafi has claimed from the start. Here is the relevant part of today's report:
Meanwhile Sirte on the Mediterranean coast was pounded overnight intensively by allied warplanes, it was claimed.
"The city has become a ball of fire," the resident said. "The doors in our house were flung open from the force of the blasts."
"Most of the residents have fled into the desert terrified by the air strikes."
Having cooperated (apparently) with the anti-al Qaeda posture of the US since its 2003 deal with the Bush administration, why is the US turning its back on that deal in favor of unknown "rebels" who apparently are Islamists?
Update: The West now attacks Tripoli. Clearly a declaration of war by the US Congress should be required to initiate regime change. (From Reuters):
TRIPOLI - At least six explosions resonated in the Libyan capital Tripoli on Sunday, possibly signaling renewed air strikes by Western coalition forces.
The explosions were followed by sustained bursts of anti-aircraft gunfire by Libyan forces.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2011