US ending its air combat role in Libya

[jakeXT]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon is about to pull its attack planes out of the international air campaign in Libya, hoping NATO partners can take up the slack.

The announcement Thursday drew incredulous reactions from some in Congress who wondered aloud why the Obama administration would bow out of a key element of the strategy for protecting Libyan civilians and crippling Moammar Gadhafi's army.

"Odd," ''troubling" and "unnerving" were among critical comments by senators pressing for an explanation of the announcement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that American combat missions will end Saturday.

....

Gates and Mullen, in back-to-back appearances before the House and Senate armed services committees, also forcefully argued against putting the U.S. in the role of arming or training Libyan rebel forces, while suggesting it might be a job for Arab or other countries. The White House has said repeatedly that it has not ruled out arming the rebels, who have retreated pell-mell this week under the pressure of a renewed eastern offensive by Gadhafi's better-armed and better-trained ground troops.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYvZVKQ3pX1rW738tx-6ux9wSBNQ?docId=f006ae9728d946baafc577046014db76

---

Stephen Colbert covers the 'turd sandwich' of an intervention in Libya (Video)

Last night Stephen Colbert illustrated the ever-changing language to describe the war/intervention/conflict/humanitarian mission in Libya. Many political pundits have accused the Obama administration of not having a clear message on the Libyan mission. Colbert made fun of the dilemma for the Obama administration, and then referred to a clip of Savannah Guthrie from MSNBC who reported that the President himself called the intervention a "turd sandwich" Colbert then introduces his own coverage of the "Turd Sandwich in Libya." As Colbert put it, even journalists cannot seem to agree on the spelling of the Libyan leaders name, who has been spelled Qudafi, Gaddafi, Gadafi, and Kadhafi by various writes.

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/stephen-colbert-covers-the-turd-sandwich-of-an-intervention-libya-video
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/stephen-colbert-covers-the-turn-sandwich-libya-and-slams-newt-gingrich-for-flip-flopping-video

[indimuse]

1. No it's NOT! WE ARE NATO! THEY LIE and WE BUY...NOT! n/t

[Tunkamerica]

3. as if...

a baking powder?

[David__77]

2. I hope so.

I doubt is highly. I am hopeful that the sanity faction within NATO can exert sufficient influence within NATO to restrict bombing to most conservative interpretation of the UN resolution.

[liberal N proud]

4. And now McCain is critical of ending the effort

Last week he was critical of the attack, now critical of stopping.

:wtf:

[joshcryer]

5. McCain may be getting senile imo.

[SkyDaddy7]

6. I think most of the GOP is senile!!

They oppose whatever Obama does regardless of the issue!

[pam4water]

8. To quote Stephen Colbert again, "A true leader is consistent in

who he choices to oppose."

[BenzoDia]

10. I'd have to double check, but I thought McCain's opinion was that we took too long getting in there.

[liberal N proud]

12. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it

His opinion changed once that happened. Now it is back again.

[No Elephants]

7. There is no "correct" spelling of Kaddafi's name in our alphabet. (Duh.)

The most useful spelling in our alphabet would be the spelling that most closely approximates how the Libyan leader's name sounds, when said by the Libyan tyrant, er, leader.

[trof]

9. It's the Hokey-Pokey Gambit

You put your fighters in
You take your fighters out...
:-)

[EFerrari]

14. LOL

[BenzoDia]

11. Look, Obama said in the beginning that America's involvement in this would bel

"limited in scope" and it sounds he's keeping to that.

We don't want our expensive warplanes dropping expensive missiles risking civilian casualties. So unless I'm missing something, us pulling back is a good thing.

[Lucinda]

16. And who is the leading force in NATO? n/t

[BenzoDia]

18. They put a Canadian in charge of this operation right? And if the US is not burning through money

and racking up civilian casualties with our weapons, that's worlds better than our more recent wars.

[Baclava]

13. Yep - the blood in on your hands France - we're washing our hands of the mess, I guess

Well, that's what it sounds like. Good for us saying NO MORE WAR! this whole thing was a mistake, bad for the rebels hoping to waltz into Tripoli

So we blew half a billion dollars for a stalemate?

Ceasefire?

DMZ?

[David__77]

15. Stalemate was always the most likely result of intervention.

They are hoping like crazy for a "bloodless coup" because they know that's what will allow them (US-led NATO) to save face. There a hyperactive spin taking place right now. Military and intelligence people are skeptical, if not cynical, with all the dancing around. The thing is that if this plays out militarily with two sides (or, possibly more in the future) contending for state power, there are going to be LOTS of civilian casualties. And drive east of west is going to result in that. So that cannot really be allowed unless the whole UN resolution stuff is thrown out the window, which powerful elements in NATO are not willing to do, at this point anyway...

[Baclava]

19. So has that Canadian general dude stood up to talk yet?

The one supposed to be running the military show? Isn't he a Quebeccer?

I want to hear what the supreme allied commander has to say.

edit

Supreme coalition commander, I should say.

[ProgressIn2008]

17. I guess the moral urgency wasn't so urgent after all? nt

[Aerows]

20. I assume that this is ending early

because it has turned out to be extremely unpopular politically.

How the hell can we justify throwing away billions in Libya, while cutting our budgets to the bone? Then again, how the hell can we justify giving the wealthiest among us and corporations tax breaks (or not even taxing them at all or giving them subsidies) either.

Frankly, I don't think we should have gotten involved in the first place - Europe should have handled it (and paid for it).