Pentagon official: US working to hand off control of Libya military mission by this weekend (AP)

[jefferson_dem]

WASHINGTON — Pentagon official: US working to hand off control of Libya military mission by this weekend.

http://www.journal-news.com/news/nation-world-news/pentagon-official-us-working-to-hand-off-control-of-libya-military-mission-by-this-weekend-1117000.html

[Adsos Letter]

1. Good.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Is that just control, or control of and participation in?

Nothing else said.

Will we continue the participate under the NATO banner, or do we leave the bombing to someone else?

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. and is that overt or covert "control" of the action in Libya?

Who would we hand it over to, and where did "they" get their missiles?

[Ozymanithrax]

4. I love the smell of propaganda in the morning...

It smells like ... bullshit.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. unless it is by Regressives, then it smells like ....batshit.

[Arkana]

6. Good news.

[jefferson_dem]

7. NATO To Take Over No-Fly Zone in Libya

http://abcnews.go.com/International/nato-charge-libya-fly-zone-united-states/story?id=13210685

[DrToast]

9. Newt Gingrich is against this

And if you give him a few minutes, he can come up with a reason why.

[Life Long Dem]

13. Newt is finished.

After Newt blew up Libya to take out Qaddafi , he wouldn't have intervened to blow up Libya to take out Qaddafi. :patriot: I love it!

[vaberella]

8. Wow, much fast than I expected. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

10. CNN is really crossing its fingers with mouth wide open, tongues wagging

that this mission fail. :wow:

With enemies like CNN, who needs Kaddafi's PR department? :shrug:

[Inchworm]

11. No doubt

I heard Blitzer's voice bullying some guy in an interview and came in to change it.

Hec, all he needs to do is read the transcript to see how dense he sounded. It was like SAY WHAT I WANT YOU TO SAY NOW!! lol

What a dumbass.

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

12. Wolf was talking to the Secretary General of NATO.....

without much respect, and a whole lot of leading questions.

The media really is sad.

They kept no track of money spent on Iraq,
but all of the sudden with this UN action,
they are all into the accounting down to the cost of fuel!
Their treatment of Bush's illegal war vs. Obama's UN Intervention are glaring.
They did nothing but propagandized and promote the Iraq war before and after
non stop....remember Pvt. Jessica Lynch and the toppling of the Saddam statue?
but now....they may as well join the group "Answer" but just on this action.....
And the worse part is that they have absolutely no shame. Scary.

[Inuca]

14. I heard that

and actually I think that for once Blitzer did a good job. It was bullying only in the sense that he wanted a clear answer which Rasmussen did not want to give until he was asked over and over again. In the end he did clarify things. I htink Blitzer did a good job, I knew more after those few minutes than I did earlier.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Blitzer did it to generate a controversy......

because the media would like nothing better than to continue to say that "this is confusing", "doesn't this hurt the mission?", etc....

However, there is no controversy....simply that NATO has not voted on that part,
although they are slated to and will to agree on this part too....

But of course, instead of Blitzer giving us context that the difference between the 2
is just a matter of time, he made it seem like things are confused.....when he's the
one generating the confusion. I'm sure by now that AP is running with the story of
the "Controversy" that has now been drummed up.

It's amazing to watch them work.....in tantum, one news org with another, I might add.

Didn't see any of this when any other conflict has ever occurred one-day-in...which is when they
started reporting negatively at all times on this one.

It has little to do with News orgs being peacenicks all of the sudden, and more with
who the President is. And no, they didn't learn anything from Iraq, because the thing
about the media is that they never learn; that's part of the hubris and arrogance.

So yeah....they are "aggressive" and shit, but again, it has nothing to do with anymore
than politics. They want to sway folks against this mission.....unlike when they wanted
us to support our actions in Iraq.

[Inuca]

16. That's not the impression I got

but I was listening on the radio, did not see it, so I did not have visual cues. I found Rasmussen's ((sp?) confusing at first and that's why I appreciated Blitzer's insistence. And I hope you are right NATO agreeing on the 2nd part soon, I'll keep all my fingers crossed for that.