How accurate are these missiles anyway? Were going to hit a bunch of innocents again and have the military cover it up.

As I understand it, this new generation of Tomahawk's are very accurate. As for non-combatant deaths go, just this morning I heard a report on NPR of all places about how the Libyan Army is stockpiling hundreds of already dead bodies around the various SAM sites so that it will appear that there are civilian deaths involved. I guess it's going to depend on who you believe. The U.S. Department of Defence or Quadafi?

Fox News viewers will believe Quadafi first.

It's a very cheap tactic of just firing missles for a squabble that has nothing to do with the British or US.

Why the heck is Fox news bad Allen all of the news is linked most of it's AP and Reuters.

Generally speaking, Republicans and their mouthpiece Fox News support bombing brownskins in the Middle East and Northern Africa. But this was Obama's decision to bomb, so now they have to fall all over themselves coming up with excuses as to why it's bad:

— "Libya didn't attack us!" Neither did Iraq.

— "Congress didn't approve this act of war so it's illegal!" The last Congress-approved war was WWII.

— "The cost of those missiles would have covered the budget shortfall in Wisconsin!" Well then it's a good thing they were paid for with federal funds.

— etc., etc...

Well -- I don't watch Fox News, Allen, but I'm not crazy about us starting our third military adventure in that region.

Can't we wrap up one of our other wars first? And by "wrap up," I mean pull out all of our troops and materials, not say that we're leaving at some fuzzy point in the future.

Also, the Tomahawk missile, built by Raytheon, costs $3.7 million each.

So every time we lob a Tomahawk at someone, that's $3.7 million gone that didn't repair a school, feed a hungry kid or keep a cop on the beat. The House budget cutters last week voted to axe $5 million from public radio, which would result in the closure of many public radio stations in rural areas. That's one and a half missiles.

Qadaffi is a scumbag, and if his people can kill or overthrow him, that's terrific. Good luck, fellas. But why do we get pulled into these things?

As for your comparison to Iraq -- hey, I agree. I thought from the start that Iraq was going to be a disaster. Ninety percent of my countrymen disagreed with me. My general rule on military force is, don't go starting a fight. If they didn't attack you, keep your missiles in your pants.

You're working for Fox now? Quadafi has been flirting with this for decades. The only reason it's a problem is because a [black] Democrat gave the order. It's not a unilateral operation, and the US isn't even taking the lead. The missiles were already in our arsenal, paid for. The Republican-majority House vote on defunding NPR still has to be approved by the Democratic-majority Senate, which is unlikely. NPR claims that Federal funding is less than 2% of their budget, anyway.

And trying to draw a straight line from defense spending to NPR, education, etc., is a disingenuous effort at best. You can do better than that.

Hahaha! The banner ad at the top is for Goldline International! Must be the mention of Fox News.

I generally object to American presidents launching missiles at countries that haven't attacked us, whether they're white or black, Democratic or Republican. I didn't approve of our last president's foreign misadventures, either. It's got nothing to do with skin color or party.




And now they will be replaced. So Raytheon gets a check for $3.7 million times however many.



There are several entities here, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which subsidizes PBS and NPR), NPR and the NPR member stations across the country. NPR says the loss of federal funds would hurt, but it wouldn't be fatal. However, the affected money that goes directly to NPR member stations is what allows many poor, rural areas to have public radio. These communities can't offer much in the way of local pledges and underwriting support.



It's really not. As a country, we decide how we're going to spend our money. In recent years, we've decided to spend many tens of billions of dollars on various wars. Spend less on missiles and you have more money for Pell Grants, assuming you think educated Americans are more important to our future than dead Libyans.

One other thought.

Can we stop calling it defense spending? We usually use this money to pay for our attacks on much smaller countries that haven't done anything to us, or at least, not lately. Let's call it attack spending and the U.S. Department of Attack.

It's defense if you're defending yourself.

George Orwell would shake his head with knowing dismay if he saw us invade and bomb other countries and call it "defense," praising ourselves for "defending our way of life" while we rack up body counts in places that were not threatening our way of life.