In a gesture of Christian kindness to my barbarian death cult brothers, I hereby promise not to fly over Gaza.

I'll go beyond a no-fly zone to promise to try my best to stay even out of smelling distance of Gaza. My Baptist dry cleaner fully supports this position, too.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people?

If Hamas will also include Israel in a "no rocket zone," this would possibly work, but don't hold your breath waiting for them to agree to this. As typical, Hamas has yet to learn that "you reap what you sow," and as long as they continue to fire rockets into Israel, they will get air-strikes in return. This is a variation of the "stimulus-response" link; if you don't want the response, don't provide the stimulus! When the responses are sufficiently painful, Hamas will cease firing rockets into Israel. Hamas has just not yet exceeded that threshhold of pain!

"They figure that if Obama is willing to defend terrorists in Libya, he may very well defend terrorists in Gaza."

He defends them coming across our southern border as well.

Rick: They figure that if Obama is willing to defend terrorists in Libya. (with a no fly zone)

So after the neo cons, conservative pundits, and conservative papers, (the list was long), were critical of US inaction, that would have "abetted terrorism".

For example, March 6, before the first air US strikes the WSJ wrote

The greatest danger now to U.S. interests—and to Mr. Obama's political standing—would be for Gadhafi to regain control. A Libya in part or whole under the Gadhafi clan would be a failed, isolated and dangerous place ruled by a vengeful tyrant and a likely abettor of terrorists.

So, Nato and the US forces by bombing Daffy, are now defending terrorists in Libya?... according to Rick.

The Arab League is certainly within its rights to create a no-fly zone in Gaza provided that the Gazan government approves of such a thing. If the Arab League would like such a zone, let the Arab League provide the planes to enforce it. And let the Arab League bear the diplomatic consequences flowing from it.

Conservative papers??

Where?

Crickmore's convoluted logic amazes.

wall streeet journal new republic center okay

The concensus across the spectrum but minly from the right was Obama was dithering, then went he did strike KDaffy ...he is now defending terrorists.

"Israeli and Palestinian officials were on Sunday floating a ceasefire to end fighting in the coastal strip where Israeli air strikes have killed at least 18 people since Thursday."

"18 people". Got that? Gee, I wonder whether they were involved in any of the usual activity such as, oh I don't know, firing rockets into Israel. I guess they're not interested in making that distinction. Just another example of Palestinians = "just people" and Israelis = "overreactive militaristic bad guys".

Yeah Steve! You are right. (wink, wink) Obama didn't dither. He was decisive and ready to go. You lefties sure are having a hard time defending this character. ww

WildWillie, I supposoe the neocons and your last GOP nominee, McCain who were strong advocates of American military enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya are lefties, as well.

Sure Obama dithered, but we have never heard what Rick thought the policy should be? He is still waiting to decide which way the wind will blow, Jay wanted no US military response whatsover, unless it was very early, which would have been politically impsssible, given the presence of American civilians in Libya (before they were evacuated), among other reasons against an earlier bombing campaign.

That seems to be the modus operandi here; carp whatever Obama administration does, even though your wizbang foreign policy like the Republicans, is incoherebt.

I suppose you are basking in the glory of taking months to decide on the Iraqi invasion based on 'the s1am dunk' that it had WMD. How did that work out? I'd rather a president dither, than it gei it decisively wrong or like wizbang never tell us what you think the president should do..until after he has done it and then even waffle, all the while accusing Obama of being indecisive.

McCain is not a conservative. He is a Republican. He good on very few issues and a horror on others. We are not mind Numb robots that follow RHINO like idiots.
The Administration cannot define their stance on Libya from one day to the next. Their no governing principal, because of this the AL will endeavor to get the UN and the US to side against the only truly functioning democracy in the Middle East.

If the AL want a no fly zone let them try one I would love to see Israel reject the No Fly zone. Would be a good way to thin out some hostile air forces.

The concensus across the spectrum but minly from the right was Obama was dithering,

And the consensus was right - he was dithering. Dithering on making a decision, i.e., whether to get involved or not.

The mistake you're making is equating "not dithering" with "deciding to get involved."

"Deciding not to get involved" would have qualified as "not dithering" too.

Dicking around picking basketball brackets while a crisis unfolds does qualify as "dithering."

OTOH, maybe he wasn't dithering. He just had a lousy phone connection with Mr. Soros, and so didn't know what his instructions were.

Perfectly understandable. Who wants to cross his boss?

Conservatives may have some good ideas, but many of their spokesman issue unthinking nonesense such as They figure that if Obama is willing to defend terrorists in Libya, he may very well defend terrorists in Gaza.

I suppose for Rick, Gdaffy is the peace loving good man, we should be encouraging, who knows? and the Libya rebels are the terrorists,the bad guys, when most of them are merely civilians, trying to avoid being massacred, while fighting for their regions's freedom against Gdaffys mercenaries. Whose side is wizbang on, it is hard to tell?

Here is a little context, in case you are wondering about not interfering, or even interfering on behalf of Gdaffy, as Rick seems to suggest would be a better policy in order to stem 'the terrorist' rebels.

It is so ironic that critics of the UN intervention in Libya keep asking why there was no such humanitarian mission in Darfur in the Sudan, where separatists among the black African Fur people have been massacred by Arabic-speaking black Africans loyal to Khartoum. But it was Qaddafi’s disastrous interventions in Chad and the Sudan that initiated that bloodbathThe contemporary Darfur problem started in 1987 when some Arabic-speaking militiamen from Chad, who had been armed by Qaddafi, established a base over the border in Darfur. They were the precursors of the Janjawid. Qaddafi, ever the regional imperialist and spoiler, had used his oil billions to fill the continent with armed mercenaries and guerrillas, whom he used to widen his control. He spent fruitless years trying to take over his southern neighbor, Chad, the northern part of which his troops brutally occupied for years.

Far away from his own territory, Qaddafi spread terror through his terrorist training camp, the World Revolutionary Center. Out of it came a cadre of coup- and war-makers hungry for blood diamonds, including Charles Taylor of Liberia and Foday Sankoh of Sierra Leone. Qaddafi and Taylor intervened in the Sierra Leone war. Hundreds of thousands were killed in these conflicts provoked in part by Qaddafi’s ambitious attempt to foster a generation of authoritarian, reactionary revolutionaries in his own mold, who would be his clients. Having billions in oil money allowed him to undermine security and to play favorites in West African politics.