Dear Madame L,
Remember a couple of months ago when you wrote that you supported the Libyan rebels, you weren't sure the U.S. should intervene, but you were glad the French were supporting them? (You also wrote that it would probably all be over in a couple of days.)
So, now we find out the French intervened on the advice of a celebrity-pseudo-philosopher who was trying to help his pal Sarkozy be re-elected. And we read an article by this same celebrity-pseudo-philosopher about how appalled he was at how the accused celebrity-IMF-head-but-now-resigning-dirty-old-man was being treated "like a common criminal" in the U.S. courts.
What do you say about that now, Madame L?
Dear Sincere Reader,
Madame L, who thanks you for finding the links exposing some of this nasty mess, is busy eating her words, or would be if they weren't electronically generated chimeras.
Madame L is sorry for the people of Libya who have been suffering so long now as their own "brother leader" kills as many of them as he can, while ensuring that the civil war he predicted takes place.
Madame L repeats what she wrote back in March: She is STILL "... glad that the U.S. is sending aid to refugees from the fighting, and wishes all the best to those throughout the world who are fighting for democracy and freedom. She encourages them to keep on fighting while recognizing that they must fight that battle themselves, without our intervention."
Madame L repeats also her request that we will all continue to pray for justice and to work to help the downtrodden and oppressed throughout the world.