Understanding now...

Here's my problem... When Qaddafi started saying al-Qaeda was responsible for the rebellion, I thought, well you know, there is a possibility that they could be involved in some way. But the media played the "he's crazy" card and left it at that. Ha ha, he wears funny clothes, what a nutter... Maybe so. But it made sense to me that al-Qaeda (or some such organization) might jump on the overthrow bandwagon, post Egypt, and fan the flames on uprisings that would eventually draw large scale Western intervention into the region. Not that they started the rebellion in Libya, but, it seemed plausible that they might get involved in the unfolding chess game.

Now, the media reports that the US military thinks, "there were 'flickers' of intelligence suggesting that al-Qaeda or Hezbollah operatives were among the rebels fighting Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi." So where does that leave the "he's crazy" analysis that we were all sold by smug snickering news pedalers in recent past? Look, I'm not saying that Col. Qaddafi is a lucid man or a saint by any means. I'm just saying, don't you know a sales pitch when you see one? Can't you smell the small-mindedness of a false expert?

I know it's all happening very quickly, and clarity isn't at a premium. Still, when will we be treated like adults about our collective understanding of unfolding situations, our national intentions, and our real interests? And more importantly, and what's really at the core of this post... Can anyone tell me a truthful, apolitical news source that won't defer to selling us quaint interpretive vignettes of "complex" situations we mere civilians just wouldn't understand?