The Hillary Clinton, Obama Libyan debacle goes from bad to worse

Red States:

...
Since the US-EU sponsored civil war that resulted in the murder of Muamar Qaddafi and the overthrow of his regime without a vetted successor waiting in the wings, Libya has been sliding into state of anarchy with numerous warlords controlling various pieces of real estate and only united by a shared islamofascist world view. If we learned anything from Iraq it should have been that when you overthrow a dictatorship it takes a substantial investment of time, money, and military might to create a government worthy of the name and the beginnings of a civil society.
It is difficult to read Obama’s dishonest and self serving speech from March 28, 2011 and not be amazed at how wrong Obama was about virtually every aspect of the Libyan adventure.

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government. 

Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

Thousands and thousands of Libyans, and Ambassador Chris Stevens and his slaughtered colleagues, would disagree that they are better off.
...

We are now preparing to evacuate the remaining Americans in the country as Libya drifts further into chaos.  Its unsecured weapons stockpile has become the arsenal of terrorist through out Africa from Boko Harem to Egyptian jihadies.   The policy has been a disaster that only get worse.