"Four months into the NATO air campaign, (Gaddafi's still) protected by loyalists and mercenaries." "Loyalists?:" yes, a growing majority of Libyans. "Mercenaries?:" in fact, those there are Western recruited cutthroats, armed, trained, funded and directed to ravage, not liberate, Libya for NATO.
Nonetheless, the editorial claims if Gaddafi "ha(s) his way, thousands more Libyans will die. The credibility of NATO would also be severely damaged. (Gaddafi), who has a long history of sponsoring international terrorism, is not one to let bygones be bygones."
In fact, most Libyans support him, more than ever now against NATO terror bombings, Times hyperbole notwithstanding. Moreover, no humanitarian crisis or mass slaughter happened until America, Britain, France, and other co-conspirators showed up, what no Times editorial or report explains.
This one says "signs of revolt" are evident - against NATO, not Gaddafi. Nonetheless, Times editors say "Washington and NATO must stand firmly with the rebels and reject any solution that does not involve the swift ouster of (Gaddafi) and real freedom for Libyans."
Omitted was saying only Libyans, (not Washington, NATO, or Times editors), may decide who rules their country. For sure, they abhor the secretive, Western controlled Interim Transitional National Council and their cutthroat mercenary killers, but don't expect America's "newspaper of record" to explain.
Nor does Al Jazeera (AJE), waging war on Gaddafi with falsified reports like a June 29 one headlined, "Libya: War and rape," suggesting:
Gaddafi's forces "used rape as a weapon." Another on June 9 headlined, "Analysis: "Gaddafi's 'rape weapon,' " saying:
International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo "said that he has evidence that (Gaddafi) ordered his soldiers to use rape as a weapon of war." He lied, but AJE didn't check and report accurately.