Those Bloody Unilateralists, Blair and Bush, are at it again:
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has admitted trying to develop weapons of mass destruction but now plans to dismantle all such programs, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday.
Bush said Libya’s decision — which would open the country to international weapons inspectors — would be “of great importance” in stopping weapons of mass destruction in a global fight against terrorism.
Britain and the United States have been talking about the issue with Libya for nine months, Blair said.
“Libya came to us in March following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly cooperative manner,” Blair said in England.
Too bad Bush still hasn’t had his lessons from Dean yet– imagine how much better this would have gone if Dean had taugh him a little something.
Hal
Boy, falling prey to the cause and effect fallacy. Hmmm. Perhaps all the international wrangling over the Lockerby negotiations had more of an effect.
One could easily claim this as a victory for the wimpy, Saddam coddling policy of international solutions via a debating society.
Note that the whole thing started at the beginning of the year, before we invaded Iraq.
One can argue that the threat of war had something to do with it (and note Dean has no problem with this). But using the Iraq invasion after the fact is rather dishonest.
Unless, of course, you’re not making that connection.
Mito
Well hopefully now Libya will stop attacking us with all their Anthrax and nuclear weapons. This is all part of the process related to Lockerbie and would have happened under Clinton as well.
Nick
Nope. The cowboys are back in town, and they’re willing to put their boots on the necks of anyone who gets in their way. It’s sad that the world has to be this way, but it doesn’t make it any less real. Just be thankful that you live in the cowboy country.
Courtney
Hey Hal,
How exactly is “March” the beginning of the year? It’s the third out of twelve months. It’s not a coincidence it also marks the beginning of the US-led coalition backing up words with action, i.e., the War in Iraq.
If you were Gadhafi, would you admit, (to Blair, Bush, or the world) that you were taking action because you were scared of the US’s might? Or would you claim it was because of the outcome of the Lockerbie negotiations? Which makes him sound better? (It’s an important skill to learn to read between the lines when your dealing with someone besides GWB.) Gadhafi’s timing was influenced by the war, whether you like it or not.
Terry
It’s been a VERY, VERY bad week for the Looney Left….first the evil and hated Bush gets Saddam, then the economic news gets even better with the best stock market and jobs numbers in nearly two years, and the week ends with the deal with Libya. Atrios has a petulant post up Saturday morning on the Libya deal; the readers’ comments are interesting, ranging from: it’s all about Libya’s oil to it’s about benefiting the Caryle Group again to it’s really another attempt at helping Halliburton to, well you get the gist. It is, in other words, the further gasps of desperation typically manifested by the paranoid schizophrenics as they spiral totally free of their remaining ties to reality.
Pootie Tang
So let me get this straight. A brutal dictator who has slaughtered and tortured his own people, who has invaded his neighbors, who has used chemical weapons, who has sponsored terrorist attacks against Americans and US soldiers, is now willing to give up his WMD programs and allow inspectors into his country as part of negotiations to relieve sanctions.
What about liberation of the Libyan people? What about democracy? Do these things matter?
Kimmitt
Someone is going to have to explain to me why it is appropriate to contain and disarm Libya but leave Qadafi in power but was not appropriate to contain and disarm Iraq but leave Saddam in power.
Kimmitt
Actually, let’s check the snark. I’m delighted to discover that President Bush has had the value of international coalitions, the UN, and sovereignity of other nations revealed to him. It is my sincere hope that the fact that we have a significant fraction of our military tied down in Iraq had nothing to do with it.
Terry
The short answer to Kimmit’s question is that, unlike Hussein, Qadaffi sought engagement and offered concrete and tangible evidence of his intentions to cooperate with full and unfettered inspections.
drew
Shorter Terry:
When I see a contradiction I rationalize it away.
I don’t think Bush would have ever let this deal go through if Saddam had offered.
Kimmitt
Stop Bush’s coddling of dictators! We must not allow our commitment to democracy to be undermined by geopolitical gamesmanship! Qaddafi must not only disarm, he must step aside, or we must invade!
Terry
Very much shorter Drew:
“I can read minds and foresee the future and I know Bush wouldn’t have accepted a deal with Saddam.”
And, as Kimmit’s last comment suggests, the Loony Left just gets loonier and loonier as they try to diminish the meaning of the “deal” with Libya.
Kimmitt
irony, n.
1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other’s false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning — called also Socratic irony
Terry
Pretentious Nincompoop: Kimmitt
Kimmitt
Oh, just admit that you got spanked and move on. It happens to the best of us.
Robin Roberts
Wishful thinking, Kimmitt.