Visual source: Newseum
The New York Times:
Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya died as he lived — violently. We sympathize with the Libyans who suffered for so long at the hands of the ruthless dictator and are glad he can no longer hurt them. But a gruesome video broadcast on Al Jazeera — apparently showing him being dragged, beaten and then, perhaps, shot to death by armed men — is deeply troubling, if it is real.
Libyans must resist further reprisals and channel their passion into building a united, free and productive country. If not, they risk even more chaos and suffering. [...]
Mahmoud Jibril, the interim prime minister, should make clear that the worst of Qaddafi’s henchmen will either be turned over to the Hague — Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, one of the colonel’s sons who is under indictment there, is said to have been captured — or given a fair trial in Libya. Those who have not committed grievous crimes should be encouraged to join in building a new Libya.
The Washington Post:
Consistent with the administration’s policy of following rather than leading in Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s visit there Tuesday came months after those of European counterparts. But it turned out to be timely, as Ms. Clinton conferred with Libya’s new leaders just 48 hours before Mr. Gaddafi’s final downfall. Ms. Clinton recognized the scale of the challenges: “Now the hard part begins,” she told interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril.
But the U.S. assistance she offered was modest: some medical aid and scholarships for students in addition to the weapons hunt. Libyan leaders are eager for a more active American role, recently telling visiting senators that the transitional council would pay for a U.S. training mission for security forces.
The administration should respond positively: Libya’s stabilization under a democratic government could help tip the broader wave of change in the Arab Middle East toward those favoring freedom. “Would you see the U.S. taking the lead in terms of rebuilding this country and helping?” a Libyan student asked Ms. Clinton. The answer should be “yes.”
Omar Abulqasim Alkikli, former political prisoner:
Before we began walking, Hyyan and I had been sitting outside a small coffee shop in the Zawiyat Dahmani neighborhood, close to the center of town. Joy had been spreading across the city with the news that Surt had been liberated, and suddenly, the shout went up that Muammar el-Qaddafi was dead, and the chants of celebration and praise to God grew louder.
Hyyan and I were initially skeptical, worried that the rumor would prove to be unfounded, as had happened with earlier news about the capture of some of Colonel Qaddafi’s adult children. I went into the coffee shop to watch the television. Al Jazeera was attributing the news to one of its sources, but it was still unconfirmed. Then I heard a man shout into his cellphone, “The dog’s dead! The dog’s dead!” I approached one of the young men celebrating raucously outside the coffee shop and told him that I was afraid the news wasn’t true. He replied that he hoped that it was, then added that it was more important that Surt had been liberated, because that was what really meant that Libya was free.
Michael O'Brien:
Republicans largely cheered on Thursday the apparent killing of Libyan leader Moammar Khaddafy, though a number of the party’s standard-bearers had expressed initial criticism of President Barack Obama’s action to help remove the dictator from power.
Khaddafy’s death after having been deposed in August would seem, at first glance, to provide some measure of validation to Obama’s strategy in Libya. The president authorized the U.S. to join in limited airstikes with NATO in consultation with international partners and institutions.
That decision won him little praise from the GOP, and opposition even from members of his own party, and especially the GOP presidential hopefuls vying for Obama’s job.
Eugene Robinson argues that Libya underscores the need for a greater focus on foreign policy during the 2012 election:
In the umpteen debates held thus far, foreign policy hasn’t even been elevated to the status of an afterthought. The only nations that reliably come up are China, which we somehow have to “beat,” and Mexico, which all the candidates except Rick Perry and Ron Paul want to quarantine with an impregnable fence.
Cain said repeatedly that his proposed fence would be electrified. Then he said those remarks were in jest. Then he said the fence might be electrified after all. Sorry for the digression, but I’m just trying to keep up.
What’s no joking matter is that, to the extent that the Republican candidates deal at all with international affairs, it tends to be in a way that’s shockingly vapid and unsophisticated. It is likely that domestic issues, especially the parlous state of the economy, will dominate the election. But it’s also likely that one or more foreign crises will arise between now and Election Day — and that the contrast can only work in President Obama’s favor.
Meanwhile, in non-Libya news, Paul Krugman deconstructs Republican attempts at "logic":
So what is the G.O.P. jobs plan? The answer, in large part, is to allow more pollution. So what you need to know is that weakening environmental regulations would do little to create jobs and would make us both poorer and sicker.
Now it would be wrong to say that all Republicans see increased pollution as the answer to unemployment. Herman Cain says that the unemployed are responsible for their own plight — a claim that, at Tuesday’s presidential debate, was met with wild applause.
Both Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have, however, put weakened environmental protection at the core of their economic proposals, as have Senate Republicans. Mr. Perry has put out a specific number — 1.2 million jobs — that appears to be based on a study released by the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association, claiming favorable employment effects from removing restrictions on oil and gas extraction. The same study lies behind the claims of Senate Republicans.
But does this oil-industry-backed study actually make a serious case for weaker environmental protection as a job-creation strategy? No.
Jonathan Bernstein asks if Herman Cain's 15 minutes are up:
Republicans certainly would never nominate anyone who was actually pro-choice, and anti-abortion activists won’t forgive anyone who stumbled this badly on the issue, even if he walks it back back (as I expect he will) and clarifies that he misspoke himself and he’s actually 100% pro-life. So this is at the very least a severe blow to his campaign. Given that he’s not a serious candidate, it gives Republicans a clean shot at bashing him for long enough to finally remove him from the top of the polls. As such, it can be seen as a lucky break for Republicans who know that it’s really not a good idea to have a presidential candidate who can’t manage to put three sentences together on most topics without an embarrassing gaffe.
David Rogers reports:
Invoking “states rights” and the Constitution, Senate Republicans Thursday torpedoed an ambitious plan to create a national blue ribbon bipartisan commission to do a top-to-bottom review of the U.S. criminal justice system and report back potential reforms in 18 months.
The 57-43 roll call – three short of the 60 supermajority needed – dramatized again how politically divided the chamber has become.
Almost identical legislation cleared the House in the last Congress on a simple voice vote with Republican backing and had been approved with bipartisan support in the Senate Judiciary Committee last year as well.