"..Having played a direct role in the targeting, I can say that we certainly intended to kill him .."

"...Encouraged by this weakness, Qathaafi felt that he could support any sort of terrorist  enterprise ... The US response to this was an operation that bombed targets around Tripoli and Benghazi in retribution.  Having played a direct role in the targeting, I can say that we certainly intended to kill him and I am sorry that we did not succeed.  We aimed for his tent in Tripoli but inadvertence in delivery resulted in the bombs striking the building in the compound.  The same was true of the bombs that struck downtown.  They were dropped by an aircraft that had been mortally wounded and which crashed into the sea just offshore killing the crew.
After that Qathaafi "sobered up" about the US and began to beg like a dog at the door in a cold rain to be allowed in out of the weather by the US.  He begged in every conceivable channel.  He begged until 2003 when he realized that the GW Bush Administration was vulnerable to blandishments involving the offer of surrender to the "freedom agenda."  Who suggested that approach?  I have been told that Qathaafi's Saudi business partner suggested this approach, an approach that led to enormously lucrative oil contracts in Europe.  In pursuit of the relaxation of US hostility, Qathaafi accepted responsibility for Lockerbie and "gave up" his non-existent nuclear weapons program (a lot of junk in warehouses).  The US re-established diplomatic relations after that and Qathaafi was "re-constructed." 
Now we have this.
Why should we think that the world will take us seriously?  pl ..."