Wall-to-wall coverage of the Libyan dramas today. But who's for it and who's agin it? It appears that every national newspaper is supporting the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.
Looking at today's and yesterday's issues, there are clear differences of emphasis.
The Times, under the unequivocal headline, Regime Change, described Gaddafi as "a violent, mendacious megalomaniac... whose wily political calculations are matched by a ruthlessness that does not shrink from killing as many people as necessary to maintain his hold on power."
The coalition "has made a good start" in bringing about his downfall, but "the preferred means by which the regime should change is that it should do so at the hands of the Libyan rebels while Allied air force holds Gaddafi's air and artillery forces at bay."
The Daily Telegraph, though full of praise for David Cameron's "passionate diplomatic efforts", noted:
"If Libya is liberated from its homicidal dictator without much bloodshed, and a peaceful regime takes his place, then the prime minister will deserve – and receive – enormous international credit. That is, however, a big if."
The Independent, under the headline The West must be careful not to lose the propaganda war, warned of the dangers of "mission creep" and posed a pertinent question:
"If this operation is to be strictly limited, is the Western coalition prepared to tolerate Gaddafi remaining in power?"
The Guardian concentrated on the implications of the criticism of the assault by Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League:
"Moussa's reaction is a reminder of the political limits of a resolution designed to save civilian lives... The tension between the responsibility to protect civilians and helping rebels to oust a tyrant will only grow in the coming days."
Elsewhere, in the Telegraph, Times and Financial Times, Moussa was taken to task for what the Telegraph called his sadly predictable wavering.
The FT argued in its editorial, A united front against Gaddafi, that the attacks were justified because of the fake ceasefire. "The international coalition turned to force, and was right to."
It added: "Protecting Libyan civilians from the depredations of their murderous leader is a cause that has united the world... Arab leaders should lend their full support, moral and material, to this effort."
The Daily Mail is clearly concerned about the level of involvement. Its leading article argued: "Almost by the hour the rhetoric is being ratcheted up and the campaign goals seem to be shifting.
"Mr Cameron's motives are undoubtedly born of compassion for Libya's grievously oppressed people, and he has shown great verve and leadership in pulling together this alliance."
Then came the but. "But a nagging question remains unanswered: What exactly are we hoping to achieve with this mission?"
The Sun, never in two minds about anything, is less troubled by the increasing commitment. Indeed, in calling for Gaddafi to be toppled, it implied that it might support action on the ground.
"Much more needs to be done to protect Libyan civilians", it said. "And it becomes clearer by the hour that the only action that will ensure their safety is the permanent removal from power of Gaddafi himself."
Some 24 hours earlier, the papers were already expressing concerns about where it would all end.
The Sunday Mirror's splash headline said IT'S WAR and its ITN newsreading columnist, Mark Austin, argued: "Make no mistake, we are at war again."
The page one headline and Austin's remark struck me as the most truthful statements about the cruise missile attack on Libya's air defences.
Austin went on to say that Cameron's "high risk move... could define his premiership". That was also the belief of Cameron's former speechwriter, Ian Birrell, in the Mail on Sunday. He wrote:
"This is a huge test for Cameron: the moment every politician dreads when they take a decision that could cost the lives of British troops. It is also the moment that forces a prime minister to make the tough calls that can end up defining them."
The MoS editorial was supportive of Cameron. After a bad start, it argued, here was "good Middle Eastern diplomacy in the post-Bush world."
But there was a warning too:
"Sending in the warplanes was the easy part... It has always been far simpler to order forces into action than it has been to be clear about precisely what we are trying to achieve...
"If our real objective is regime change, which the UN and the Arab League cannot approve, then we are also entering very foggy territory."
The Independent on Sunday, after noting that it supports "the doctrine of liberal interventionism... to avert crimes against humanity", thought the imposition of a no-fly zone "was much better than nothing."
It "may seem inadequate to the task of protecting the Libyan people, but... it may be that the best we can hope for is that the international community blunts the worst excesses of Gaddafi's brutality."
The Sunday Times expressed its concern: "This newspaper has urged caution about a no-fly zone, not because we were any less anxious to see the back of Gadaffi or insensitive to the atrocities he has been committing against his own people. Rather, as top Nato generals have warned, you have to consider how the enemy will respond."
What would happen should Gaddafi press ahead with his ground forces? It concluded: "We have to hope that this time the prime minister's diplomatic triumph is followed by a swift military victory and the emergence of a new, enlightened Libyan government."
This view was echoed by the Sunday Telegraph, which praised Cameron for his "remarkable courage" and diplomatic triumph, but questioned whether a post-Gaddafi Libya would result in a civil war.
The Observer thought Cameron - along with Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama – deserve credit for truly deft diplomacy.
But "multilateral diplomacy will now be as important as military judgment... Gaddafi will be prepared to play a long game, taxing the will of the international community by attrition.
"The difficult question will then arise of how far the west and its Arab allies are willing to go in opposing him. In other words, how far will they support the rebels?"