Did NATO really kill Qaddafi’s son and grandkids in a missile strike?

posted at 2:12 pm on May 1, 2011 by Allahpundit

Did I miss a report on this somewhere or is the sum total of evidence that anyone was killed in the strike the say-so of a Qaddafi spokesgoon? There’s no question that a building west of Tripoli was hit, but as of this writing there are no photos of the bodies and no independent confirmation from anyone, including NATO, that any little Qaddafis are dead. The best evidence I can find that something unusual happened is this bit from a BBC reporter inside the city:

Earlier this evening we heard three enormous explosions to the west of the city. Normally we are taken to the bomb sites within an hour, but tonight there were a lot of concerned faces around the hotel, a lot of whispering and secrecy.

Two hours later we were eventually brought to the villa, which was surrounded by reinforced concrete, cameras, and military positions. This is clearly an exclusive neighbourhood. Inside, total destruction.

There were signs there had been a family gathering. There were no bodies in the house, they had been removed, and we are reliant on the government’s account of what happened.

According to the spokesman, Qaddafi and his wife were there visiting Saif yet somehow escaped uninjured despite the “total destruction” and alleged deaths of his family inside. Reporters from the Journal who toured the scene say the devastation was so severe that “It was unclear how anyone inside could have survived” — and yet the Brother Leader allegedly did. Hmmmm. Daily Beast correspondent Fadel Lamen phoned half a dozen sources to try to corroborate the story, and they’re suspicious too:

My Tripoli sources confirm an attack on one of the regime’s buildings frequented by another of his sons, Hanibal Gaddafi—but not Gaddafi himself, his wife or the other sons. In fact, one of my sources, acquainted with the family’s habits, maintained that the family almost never gets together, especially given the current circumstances, which makes the idea of a NATO strike that somehow hit a nest of Gaddafis (sparing the leader, of course) seem a bit far-fetched.

In fact, several sources in Libya insisted to me that Gaddafi and his wife were nowhere close to the building. Rather than stay with family, or in official and military buildings and installations, Gaddafi, these people tell me, instead stays in civilian areas in apartments and other unsuspected buildings and moves constantly.

And consider that Saif-al-Arab, just 29, wasn’t married, and didn’t have known children of his own, according to my sources. So where did these grandchildren magically appear from?

“Saif al-Arab was, unlike his brothers, not a senior military commander or propagandist,” notes a BBC commentator in the course of wringing his hands about all the bad PR this will bring for NATO. That means it’s unlikely that the coalition was targeting him; why hand Qaddafi free propaganda by killing a son who’s not causing the west much trouble? The airstrike must have been aimed at Qaddafi himself — except that, per Lamen, the Qaddafis are probably keeping their distance from each other knowing that there are eyes in the sky. And even if he did decide to meet with Saif, NATO would have to have spies very, very close to him to be able to pinpoint his location and launch a quick attack. Is that likely?

The rebel’s spokesman in Benghazi told the media that the whole thing smells fishy — and reminiscent of another famous Qaddafi propaganda ploy:

Al Jazeera’s Sue Turton, reporting from Benghazi, said there were “an awful lot” of suggestions in Libya that the news of the deaths could be fabricated.

“One of the main spokesmen for the Transitional National Council, Abdul Hafez Goga, is saying he thinks it could all be fabrication, that it may well be Gaddafi is trying to garner some sympathy,” she said.

“Back in 1986, Gaddafi once claimed that Ronald Reagan, then US president, had launched a strike on his compound in Tripoli and killed his daughter. Many journalists since then dug around and found out that the actual child that had died had nothing to do with Gaddafi, that he sort of adopted her posthumously.”

Sketchy enough for you? Hang on, because there’s one more dubious detail. Al Jazeera notes that Saif is “the most unknown” of Qaddafi’s children and “has been largely invisible since the conflict began.” True enough, but he did pop up briefly in some Arab media outlets towards the start of the conflict … for having allegedly defected to the rebels. That’s almost certainly untrue, of course: The report came from Al Hurra, which is a U.S.-backed news channel, and if the rebels had a prize like Saif in their pocket, they would have produced him long ago for propaganda reasons. The question is, where did those rumors come from? Was/is Saif on the outs with his father? Was he actually killed weeks ago, possibly in combat against the rebels in the east, and his death was kept quiet to deny the opposition a huge moral victory? No theory is too outlandish, really: Read all of Lamen’s piece above and note how Qaddafi’s been “recycling bodies” for weeks, collecting the corpses of Libyans he’s killed and then planting them in Tripoli as evidence of civilian casualties caused by NATO. Did Saif end up in the “recycling bin”? Is he still alive? Or did it all happen just like the spokesgoon said?

For what it’s worth, NATO’s top commander insists that they don’t target individuals, only military entities. But what else can he say? Our UN mandate very stupidly doesn’t extend to taking out Qaddafi, even though realistically it’s a necessary first step to cleaning up this mess. Exit quotation from McCain: “I think if you view Qaddafi himself as part of the command and control, I think you could argue that if he was in one of those places, then it would be part of it.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Oh, dear… you’re going to make Chudi cry again.

Blake on May 1, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Considering the poor performance of the NATO/French forces so far, I’d say no – not from lack of trying though.

Rebar on May 1, 2011 at 2:21 PM

It’s a strange day but I agree with Congressman Kucinich.

The end of the world must be nearing.

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Obama made the U.S. the butt of the world.

He is the CiC of given butt. Makes him the butthead.

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Who knows if his son was killed or not? But if Qaddafi eventually rolls out proof, we (NATO) loses even more credibility in this effort to reform Libya into another radical Islamic state. (That is the goal, right? I mean, is there any doubt that that will be the eventual outcome?)

BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Oh, dear… you’re going to make Chudi cry again.

Blake on May 1, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Heh.

BallisticBob on May 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Days not weeks…..

sandee on May 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Who knows if his son was killed or not? But if Qaddafi eventually rolls out proof, we (NATO) loses even more credibility in this effort to reform Libya into another radical Islamic state. (That is the goal, right? I mean, is there any doubt that that will be the eventual outcome?)

BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM

What are you talking about?

Why wouldn’t we want to kill every one of Qaddafi’s sons and him as well?

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Two weird items in just 24 hours:

1. NATO makes Quadaffi into the victim and this could backfire.

2. Obama makes Trump look sympathetic.

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Just watched Bachmann on Fox News Sunday; one of the things she talked about was Libya.

She claimed a “potential” for 35,000-40,000 killed by NATO airstrikes.

Her source? Qaddafi’s Libyan ambassador.

Anyone even considering the possiblity that this moron is ready to be President should have their head examined.

Other gems- we’ll reduce Medicare costs by curing diabeties. Well gee, if only someone had thought of that before! Someone should get on that.

Hollowpoint on May 1, 2011 at 2:36 PM

“People should be outraged at the foolishness of the president’s decision,” she said. “He said he wanted to go in for humanitarian purposes and overnight we are hearing that potentially 10 to 30,000 people could have been killed in the strike. Those are some of the reports.”

“The NATO strikes killed 10,000 to 30,000 people?” an incredulous Wallace asked.

“A report that came out last night from the Tripoli ambassador said that potentially there could be 10,000 to 30,000,” Bachmann insisted.

“You mean the Libyans?” Wallace pressed.

“Yes,” Bachmann replied.

“You think Muammar Gaddafi is a reliable person?” Wallace wondered.

This is just stupid.

Unless they were using nukes this isn’t even possible. Maybe a 1,000 plane raid could do this IF they had a 1,000 planes, which they don’t.

We would probably be seeing news reports if anything like this had happened.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 2:44 PM

We would probably be seeing news reports if anything like this had happened.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Heh. Sure.

SlaveDog on May 1, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Did Saif end up in the “recycling bin”?

HAHAHAH

Other gems- we’ll reduce Medicare costs by curing diabeties. Well gee, if only someone had thought of that before! Someone should get on that.

Hollowpoint on May 1, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Stunning, isn’t she? A real piece of work.

scalleywag on May 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Life is tough, tougher if your stupid enough to believe Muslims.

BL@KBIRD on May 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Heh. Sure.

SlaveDog on May 1, 2011 at 2:48 PM

From Al Jazeera/BBC, not the American knee pad media brigade.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM

For what it’s worth, NATO’s top commander insists that they don’t target individuals, only military entities. But what else can he say?

Well he could tell the truth. He just looks so foolish this way.

HalJordan on May 1, 2011 at 2:56 PM

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Because we don’t know if what replaces him (them) will be a better alternative?

You have some knowledge about Libya in 2015 that I don’t?

BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Bachmann is a traitor and dumb. Hopefully she gets primaried by a principled conservative with a brain.

andy85719 on May 1, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Just watched Bachmann on Fox News Sunday; one of the things she talked about was Libya.

She claimed a “potential” for 35,000-40,000 killed by NATO airstrikes.

Her source? Qaddafi’s Libyan ambassador.

Anyone even considering the possiblity that this moron is ready to be President should have their head examined.

Other gems- we’ll reduce Medicare costs by curing diabeties. Well gee, if only someone had thought of that before! Someone should get on that.

Hollowpoint on May 1, 2011 at 2:36 PM

——————————————————-

“People should be outraged at the foolishness of the president’s decision,” she said. “He said he wanted to go in for humanitarian purposes and overnight we are hearing that potentially 10 to 30,000 people could have been killed in the strike. Those are some of the reports.”

“The NATO strikes killed 10,000 to 30,000 people?” an incredulous Wallace asked.

“A report that came out last night from the Tripoli ambassador said that potentially there could be 10,000 to 30,000,” Bachmann insisted.

“You mean the Libyans?” Wallace pressed.

“Yes,” Bachmann replied.

“You think Muammar Gaddafi is a reliable person?” Wallace wondered.

This is just stupid.

Unless they were using nukes this isn’t even possible. Maybe a 1,000 plane raid could do this IF they had a 1,000 planes, which they don’t.

We would probably be seeing news reports if anything like this had happened.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 2:44 PM

So what is her range?

In Washington on Wednesday, the United States ambassador to Libya, Gene A. Cretz, said that American officials had seen estimates of the dead from the violence in Libya ranging from 10,000 to as many as 30,000 people, Reuters reported. He did not offer any explanation or any supporting evidence for that estimate. New York Times April 28, 2011

CWforFreedom on May 1, 2011 at 3:02 PM

When they run out or can not get any human shields just create the massacres of civilians who just happen to be the inner compounds.

tjexcite on May 1, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Saw Lindsay Graham defending little Bammie’s strike on Gudaffi, saying ‘he’s no longer a leader of Lybia, he’s killing his own people, etc, etc’. Sounds much like something JFK would have said to justify his many attempts on Castro, which led to laws against assassinations. Funny most of the liberals are quiet on this. Where are the Code Pink hags?

slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Because we don’t know if what replaces him (them) will be a better alternative?

You have some knowledge about Libya in 2015 that I don’t?

BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM

I know Libya will be an anti-western sand trap and that they will sell oil on the world market. I know they will be Islamic and everything that means. They aren’t going to ever be our friends and there is no point in trying to make them.

I know that those Islamic nations that are our friends such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have done more harm than our enemies in the Islamic world. Most of the 911 hijackers came from so-called ‘friendly’ nations.

I know Qaddafi should die for what he did.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 3:04 PM

So what is her range?

In Washington on Wednesday, the United States ambassador to Libya, Gene A. Cretz, said that American officials had seen estimates of the dead from the violence in Libya ranging from 10,000 to as many as 30,000 people, Reuters reported. He did not offer any explanation or any supporting evidence for that estimate. New York Times April 28, 2011

CWforFreedom on May 1, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Meh; I didn’t recall the exact range apparently. The actual number wasn’t important.

Bachmann said the number came from the Libyan ambassador, not the US ambassador to Libya. If it was the latter, blame her for getting them confused.

Hollowpoint on May 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM

In Washington on Wednesday, the United States ambassador to Libya, Gene A. Cretz, said that American officials had seen estimates of the dead from the violence in Libya ranging from 10,000 to as many as 30,000 people, Reuters reported. He did not offer any explanation or any supporting evidence for that estimate. New York Times April 28, 2011

CWforFreedom on May 1, 2011 at 3:02 PM

The idiot state department doing its bang up job as usual.

10,000 to 30,000 in a single raid is insane. It would take a large force of heavy bombers and the use of cluster bombs or FAE bombs deliberately targeting civilians to inflict those sorts of casualties in a single night.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM

slickwillie: To be fair Codepink and their group of whackos have at least been somewhat consistent:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/424/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6281

http://codepink.org/blog/2011/03/fox-news-video-codepinks-medea-benjamin-speaks-out-on-libya/

Now don’t make me defend them again! /sarc

CWforFreedom on May 1, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Meh; I didn’t recall the exact range apparently. The actual number wasn’t important.

Bachmann said the number came from the Libyan ambassador, not the US ambassador to Libya. If it was the latter, blame her for getting them confused.

Hollowpoint on May 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Sounds as if you are as reliable as Bachmann. Meh.

CWforFreedom on May 1, 2011 at 3:11 PM

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 3:04 PM

You’re probably correct in your bullet-points above, but none of those are reasons we should have entered into this conflict, especially without the wherewithal to see it to a pro-American end.

They’re currently not radicalized Islamists, and they have de-weaponized from a WMD standpoint. They’ve also not engaged in assisting foreign fighters to fight against us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I’d like to see the bastard dead as well, but not at the sake of Israel or to provide a new training ground and launching point for attacks against America. It’s truly sad to say, but some people need to be contained; populist uprisings of radical Islamists ready and willing or easily manipulated to take on the great Satan are some of those people. At least in my view.

BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Bachmann’s head is filled with so much air a single pin prick would send her flitting about the room.

andy85719 on May 1, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Is Power’s R2P the new prog version of old imperialism? Responsibility to Protect (R2P): White Man’s Burden Redux

slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2011 at 3:14 PM

In Washington on Wednesday, the United States ambassador to Libya, Gene A. Cretz, said that American officials had seen estimates of the dead from the violence in Libya ranging from 10,000 to as many as 30,000 people, Reuters reported. He did not offer any explanation or any supporting evidence for that estimate. New York Times April 28, 2011

CWforFreedom on May 1, 2011 at 3:02 PM

The idiot state department doing its bang up job as usual.

10,000 to 30,000 in a single raid is insane. It would take a large force of heavy bombers and the use of cluster bombs or FAE bombs deliberately targeting civilians to inflict those sorts of casualties in a single night.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM

The single raid or the violence in total?

CWforFreedom on May 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM

It is clear that Bachmann needs to know her sources or get out.

CWforFreedom on May 1, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Bachmann knows nothing. She’d be a perfect Dem.

andy85719 on May 1, 2011 at 3:17 PM

They’re currently not radicalized Islamists,

Yes they are. They just run the government and that means we know where to drop the bombs if they get too out of line.

and they have de-weaponized from a WMD standpoint.

Then why are the British currently looking for the Mustard gas the Libyans claim not to have?

They’ve also not engaged in assisting foreign fighters to fight against us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So the guys that came from Benghazi and eastern Libya to fight in Iraq did so against the wishes of the helpless Colonel Qaddafi?

I’d like to see the bastard dead as well, but not at the sake of Israel or to provide a new training ground and launching point for attacks against America.

BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 3:12 PM

You seem to imagine that an Islamic nation can be our friend. It can’t, and won’t.

Guys like Mubarak can be because they are one man and they are dictators who can keep the Islamic majority in line for their own reasons. Qaddafi isn’t someone like Mubarak and he killed our people and we should kill him to show the others what happens when you do things like that.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM

The single raid or the violence in total?

CWforFreedom on May 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Well Bachmann was talking about a single raid “and overnight we are hearing that potentially 10 to 30,000 people could have been killed in the strike.

The violence in total would include what the rebels and what Qaddafi have done.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 3:25 PM

So what is her range?

In Washington on Wednesday, the United States ambassador to Libya, Gene A. Cretz, said that American officials had seen estimates of the dead from the violence in Libya ranging from 10,000 to as many as 30,000 people, Reuters reported. He did not offer any explanation or any supporting evidence for that estimate. New York Times April 28, 2011

CWforFreedom on May 1, 2011 at 3:02 PM

This calls for an independent report, you know like the Dulfer where over a half million died in Iraq at our hands while the gravesites didn’t add up—a pure load of crap.

Rovin on May 1, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Bachmann is a traitor and dumb. Hopefully she gets primaried by a principled conservative with a brain.

andy85719

She may be dumb, but unless you have solid proof that she’s being a human shield for Quadaffi or funneling money to his army don’t go throwing around serious charges like traitor.

Machiavelli Hobbes on May 1, 2011 at 3:48 PM

“Did NATO really kill Qaddafi’s son and grandkids in a missile strike?”

yeah right

what a pile of desparate Qaddafi propoganda bullsh*t

move some more corpses around for photo opps, clown

Dave Rywall on May 1, 2011 at 4:15 PM

You seem to imagine that an Islamic nation can be our friend. It can’t, and won’t.

Guys like Mubarak can be because they are one man and they are dictators who can keep the Islamic majority in line for their own reasons. Qaddafi isn’t someone like Mubarak and he killed our people and we should kill him to show the others what happens when you do things like that.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM

No, actually, I don’t believe an Islamic nation can be our friend. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

What I have said is that we cannot delve into the civil wars of every nation and we’re picking and choosing with no apparent strategy except to undermine the stability of Israel. Mubarak was not a significant ally, but he did help to maintain a peaceful posture toward Israel -especially compared to what could’ve been. Qaddafi was no more a threat than Mubarak, yet we got involved militarily and how well has that worked out relative to civilian deaths?

Would you also advocate a military operation to overthrow Assad? Ahmadinejad? Nasrallah? Chavez? Jong-il?

BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Other gems- we’ll reduce Medicare costs by curing diabeties. Well gee, if only someone had thought of that before! Someone should get on that.
Hollowpoint on May 1, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Nooooooh! It’s bad enough we’ve had to endure quack Dr. Obama, not a Dr. Bachmann too!

Buy Danish on May 1, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Baghdad Bob meet Tripoli Truman LOL!

Dr Evil on May 1, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Qaddafi was no more a threat than Mubarak, yet we got involved militarily and how well has that worked out relative to civilian deaths?

This isn’t a game. We are not scoring them on points or what sort of meanies they are. Qaddafi murdered our people and he should die for it. Millions have died in the Congo and nobody gives a damn including me. The country (the Congo or Libya) doesn’t belong to us and its not our concern.

We should kill Qaddafi and go home. I don’t care what happens to the Libyans at all. Not the rebels, not the loyalists. I just don’t care.

The people of Libya, the civilians are not our friends. They danced and cheered when thousands of Americans died on 911. Should I now weep tears for them?

Would you also advocate a military operation to overthrow Assad? Ahmadinejad? Nasrallah? Chavez? Jong-il?

BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 4:19 PM

No I would advocate killing a mass murdering terrorist who killed American citizens.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM

We should kill Qaddafi and go home. I don’t care what happens to the Libyans at all. Not the rebels, not the loyalists. I just don’t care.

And that, in a nutshell, is the point. Removing Qaddafi may lead to a new launching pad for radical Islamists and new and greater operations against the US. Qaddafi had them under control to a large part. Until now.

This sounds very personal on your part. Of course I could be wrong on that, and I meant nothing insidious by it, but I can’t follow your logic. Decades-old grudges don’t make for a solid foreign policy.

BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Removing Qaddafi may lead to a new launching pad for radical Islamists and new and greater operations against the US. Qaddafi had them under control to a large part. Until now.

I understand that was a big talking point with Bush and his team, but I never bought into it. The launching pad used to murder 3,000 Americans on 911 was Saudi Arabia and the UAE as well as Germany. We hit them in Afghanistan because thats where they were. They didn’t need to be there, it was just convenient.

They are also in Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, Algeria, Yemen, Indonesia, and Lebanon.

Qaddafi has sent men from Libya to fight in Iraq just a few years ago. He has murdered Americans and he still has Mustard gas.

There is NOTHING to lose here.

Decades-old grudges don’t make for a solid foreign policy.

BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Terrorists should be hunted down and killed, regardless of where they go or who they are. There should not be any exemptions or waivers.

It does make for good foreign policy because allowing nations to believe that you can be attacked with impunity is setting up a very bad precedent.

I’m a fan of disproportionate response. They must pay a heavy price for what they do, or they will repeat it until we are beaten.

sharrukin on May 1, 2011 at 4:55 PM

I demand that he release his death certificate.

Aardvark on May 1, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Well, well, well. Looks like maybe some of AP’s skepticism was in order.

Seif Al-Arab, the lowest-profile Qaddafi son, would be the easiest to hide if he’s still alive. Qaddafi’s been playing the game of false statements and convenient blame all along. It’s possible there is absolutely nothing to this, other than a destroyed building. Time will tell.

J.E. Dyer on May 1, 2011 at 5:57 PM

She may be dumb, but unless you have solid proof that she’s being a human shield for Quadaffi or funneling money to his army don’t go throwing around serious charges like traitor.

Machiavelli Hobbes on May 1, 2011 at 3:48 PM

“Traitor” is no longer a serious charge, it’s been used too much by unserious people. It’s now just a way of indicating a dislike the user can’t articulate.

PersonFromPorlock on May 1, 2011 at 7:56 PM

woolf!… and if they did then it is bad juju kicking his ass for lying the first time around.

lexhamfox on May 1, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Well…they said they got Osama…and every one believes that…right?

It is not like people would lie or anything.

percysunshine on May 1, 2011 at 11:25 PM

BKeyser: Decades-old grudges don’t make for a solid foreign policy.

Why is it so difficult for non-interventionist to wrap their heads around the Bolton doctrine?

First, we must reverse course now and declare regime change to be our objective… Second, because Libya’s opposition leadership is still inchoate at best, we must identify anti-Gadhafi figures who are pro-Western and find ways, overt or covert, to strengthen their hands.”

BEFORE NATO actions commenced (not “decades ago”), Kaddafi publicly VOWED to resume targeting civilian airliners.

Does any serious person doubt the sincerity of Kaddafi’s vow? Do you honestly imagine he’s NOT going to try to “settle scores“? Are you willing to put innocent Americans’ lives at risk on some conceit that Kaddafi isn’t as evil as (say) al-Awlaki?

Wake up, hand-wringers. The clock is now ticking, again. Kaddafi’s typical retaliation turnaround time is measured in mere weeks or months.

Reagan (March ’86): Gulf of Sidra skirmish
Kaddafi (April ’86): Berlin disco bombing
Kaddafi (April ’86): TWA840

Reagan (April ’86): Operation El Dorado Canyon
Kaddafi (Sept ’86): PA73
Kaddafi (Dec ’88): PA103
Kaddafi (Sept ’89): UTA772

If Americans learned anything from 9/11, it’s that we can’t afford to wait for terrorists to follow through on their threats.

America now has a duty to bring Kaddafi to justice; or justice to Kaddafi.

I don’t much care whether Kaddafi meets a Predator drone or Mussolini’s fate on a meat-hook. But Kaddafi (personally) must answer for his actions.

Mark these words: Anything short of a Kaddafi dirt-nap will be a grave mistake.

Terp Mole on May 2, 2011 at 9:34 AM