Who here thinks that the White House, and Hillary Clinton, waited until they

[applegrove]

knew Gaddafi was going to lose power (in the last four weeks it was becoming obvious)to finally call for President Bashar Al Assad of Syria to step down? Once they knew Libya was going to go to the rebels then they felt comfortable risking direct confrontation with Syria.....because they knew they'd have a NATO win in Libya.

[RandySF]

1. loose = lose.

Some people on the 'net are speculating themselves into pretzels tonight.

[Firebrand Gary]

2. Lmao, yes they are.

[applegrove]

3. Thanks for the spelling correction.

[Renew Deal]

4. Didn't Turkey threaten Syria last week?

[TheWraith]

8. I wouldn't call it a threat quite yet.

Basically they called on Syria to immediately stop the violence and suppression of protests. But Turkey doesn't have enough firepower to quickly and cleanly take down Syria without help. Probably either NATO as a whole, or France in particular.

[aquart]

5. Yes, dear.Because we are in control of all things and every event.

Not to mention being able to predict the future.

[applegrove]

6. Someone on CNN just said that in the last 4 weeks it looked like the rebels in Libya were doing

really well.

[SheilaT]

7. I'm trying to make sense of the first line.

"Who here thinks that the White House, and it follow Hillary Clinton,"

What does "it" refer to? Is something or someone following Hillary Clinton?

As for the rest of the question, it seems like a reasonable guess that Gaddafi would go down eventually, but the exact date was always going to be in question. Personally, I think we should have absolutely not been involved in Libya, but that's just my opinion which clearly means nothing to those in charge of such things.

[applegrove]

9. Thanks for the grammar advice.

[SheilaT]

10. And thank you for the rewrite and

clarification.