Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site pucc-i
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-i!afb
From: afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Reagan wimps out...
Message-ID: <1242@pucc-i>
Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 13:06:08 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-i.1242
Posted: Thu Jan  9 13:06:08 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jan-86 03:56:47 EST
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 19


     Well, it looks as though any US military retaliation against the Libyans
is ruled out by the Reagan Administration.  I'm reading the State Department
report on Libya in the NY Times, and it contains some pretty tough talk.  Why,
if what we read in this report is true and substantiated by hard facts, is the
US not retaliating?  If it is not true or unsubstantiated then why is it even
published?  The paltry economic sanctions ordered by the Administration amount
to much less than a "slap on the wrist".  If our western European "Allies"
(particularly Italy, the site of the worst of the two terrorist attacks) don't
join in, then this step is utterly meaningless.

     I remember some pretty tough talk about "state-supported terrorism" in the
last few years.  Wasn't that one of the reasons people elected Reagan in the
first (and second) place?  You'll notice that Ronnie isn't talking much about
a "mandate from the people" on this issue...

     WHAT DOES KHADAFFY HAVE TO DO?

     Mike Lewis @ Purdue University