Is Gaddafi dead? Or just hiding?

There's an odd thing about dictators and terrorists (some of whom happen to be both at the same time) and that is we all seem uncertain as to whether they are actually dead when they are dead. There are some who thought Hitler survived the bunker. Others have speculated about the death of Stalin. Mussolini got strung up and Ceausescu got riddled with bullets, alongside his delectable wife, so there was some certainty there. Now Bin Laden is being gossiped about, much to the annoyance of the Americans.

So what of Colonel Gaddafi of Libya? Is he dead? Or just playing possum somewhere, hoping to skidaddle to somewhere better? NATO doesn't know of his whereabouts. Some reporters think he might have been killed in a bombing raid. NATO spokesman Brigadier General Claudio Gabellini said, "We have no evidence about what Gaddafi is doing right now. To tell you the truth, we're not really interested in what he's doing." Sounds rather vague. The whole reason for going into Libya was to protect the civilian population from his madness. I know we don't want a running commentary on his daily routine but wouldn't it be nice to know if he is still around?

It may suit the Libyan government to keep up a charade but the Western democracies could be wasting valuable time by not knowing. This isn't even in conspiracy theory territory. It's just not bothering much.

Gaddafi has vowed to die a martyr. Better that than dying in unknown circumstances with all the rumourmongers in full cry. We are told that his youngest son got killed in a raid, but even questions are being asked about that. Definitely a war of words as much as bombs.

Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/78793,people,news,is-colonel-gaddafi-dead-libyans-suspicious-of-vanishing-act#ixzz1M3feLlmC

Libyan rebels say NATO isn't doing enough

Rebels with a cause

The rebels have a general and the rest make do with a colonel going crazy. The general seems capable but has a few proper soldiers and a ragtag of a volunteer army. The colonel is incapable, has a lot of proper soldiers and a diminishing crowd of loyal flagwavers. A general should take precedence over a colonel. Libya is in real conflict, that's certain. Said Gaddafi is making it up as he goes along, a bit like his doctoral thesis. Old clips of raving supporters are shown on Libyan TV as if to prove some point. And the country is fast looking like a dumping ground for bits of old twisted metal. Do they have guys driving around in trucks blowing their horns like we do in Birmingham and Solihull?

The rebel leadership in Benghazi seems attractive to the Western powers. Thet are made up largely of pro-democracy types, ranging from doctors to entrepreneurs. The one thing they have in common is a desire to speak and live freely. But should NATO bomb what the rebels want them to bomb? How deep should NATO get into this conflict? Well, I think as far as possible without getting toes and fingers burnt. Proper help is letting the rebels do the defeating themselves, albeit with some effective help. They don't want swaggering British officers giving Gaddafi Senior a dressing down in public. They just want to get to Tripoli to tell him the game's up.

Libya is far too important a country, strategically, economically and culturally for NATO not to be seen to be doing things properly. That is knocking out Gaddafi's military capability.

Brown bushwhacked in Bucharest!

These two look fit for replacement! Bush is obviously pining for Yo Blair! but gets a grumpy guy in return. No doubt about it. They're bored. They're not really listening. Nothing to lighten the tedium of being there. It's all so foreign.

Can they be our leaders? Bush supposedly got NATO allies to agree to endorse a United States missile defense system based in Europe. Maybe this was before they told him they would agree. Whatever, it looks a bit bad that they appear so lost in time and space.

Looks like we do need a new set of leaders. Americans are getting the chance to choose in November. Maybe the British could have the same chance?

No misperceptions! Bush backs Ukraine's Nato bid

President Bush, on a visit to Ukraine (and under the eagle eye of a satellite-hatted Ukrainian soldier!), today declared his unequivocal support for the entry of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, a position that is almost bound to anger Russia. The President said, “Your nation has made a bold decision, and the United States strongly supports your request,” he told Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko. But both former Soviet states are expected to be blocked by French and German opposition. So stalemate looms.

It's a good thing President Yushchenko is married to an American. She can explain away the Bushisms. G.W. said it was a “misperception” that he might trade his Ukraine support in exchange for Russian acceptance of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. “There's no tradeoffs (good grammar!). Period,” he said. Russia has been lobbying hard against both states, saying NATO’s expansion into former Soviet territory impinges on Russia’s sphere of influence. However, it's hardly the most important thing for Ukrainians. I'd put getting a good day's pay, decent housing and education higher up the list of priorities. It's a pity, though, that Russia and the USA can't be a bit more friendly. After all, some megamillionare (supposedly Roman Abramovich) is attempting to build a tunnel under the Bering Strait as part of a transport corridor linking Europe and America via Siberia and Alaska. The Russians must be sorry the Tsar sold Alaska to the Americans in the first place!