[kenavi]

Yes, I know Qaddafi had given up his WMD and the presumed Lockerbie assassin, in return for a truce with the West. The most responsible of his kids had even gotten his MBA here and was developing a free trade and touristic zone with Western capital.

But when he engaged in a scorched earth policy against a big swath of his own people, it would have been difficult for the U.S. and our Mediterranean allies to do nothing in the face of the massacres and the flood of refugees that would ensue.

I brought up Syria because as in Libya, there is a brutal tyrant but one who keeps the Islamists down.

In the Moslem world particularly, there are no good solutions. Every choice involves a trade-off. No one can foresee all the consequences. And our power to change things there is very limited.

We didn't create the Arab Spring. The question was how to try to channel it.

I see Christopher Stevens as one who championed our country's interests in the civilian sphere. We should not politicize his life or death.

[FreedomPoster]

There were plenty here and elsewhere who predicted the outcome we are seeing, with Islamists taking power.

Why do we have to pick a side? Why did we intervene in Libya? Without a Congressional vote, by the way. What compelling national interest was involved?