Bush 2, Evil Dictators 0

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Yes, this comes from Townhall, but the inherent truth to it is there, confirmed by a few Democratic sources as well. Kadafi decided he would give in rather than be obliterated and spend his last days of freedom in a rat infested hole in the ground. His son had a lot to do with this decision, according to CNN reports, but whatever it takes - one less psycho leader to worry about.

Bush on a roll

Cal Thomas (archive)

December 22, 2003

First Saddam Hussein falls to the Bush Doctrine, and now Libya's dictator, Moammar Kadafi, buckling under pressure, announces he will give up his efforts (and they were considerable) to develop weapons of mass destruction. He has also allowed American and British inspectors into Libya to see what he's been up to for the last two decades.

The New York Times had advised a different course of action. The newspaper editorialized that the United States should have followed the example of the United Nations and lifted sanctions after Libya's settlement with the families of those killed aboard Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, a terrorist attack in which Kadafi grudgingly admitted his role. To its credit, The Times has acknowledged it was wrong and President Bush was right. In a Dec. 20 editorial, the newspaper said, "This page recommended lifting American sanctions.but President Bush left them in place pending further steps, most notably Libya's decision to end its unconventional weapons programs. It is now clear that he was right to do so. The added American pressure worked just as intended."

No wonder the president doesn't read the newspapers.

This policy success should be a lesson to the United Nations, "peace activists" and others who have criticized the Bush strategy of preemption and the "failure" (so far) to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - even though Saddam Hussein used them in the past. Dictators lie and deceive. This lesson should have been learned in the last century. Applying moral equivalency in negotiations with dictators is like taking a used car salesman at his word without inspecting the vehicle.

The fruits of the war to topple Saddam Hussein are becoming apparent. Even Democrats are starting to acknowledge the significance of Libya's announcement. Ashton B. Carter, who served as assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, said that the Iraq war was a turning point in convincing Kadafi to relinquish his weapons. One senior Bush administration official told reporters last Friday night (Dec. 19) that Libya had progressed "much further" in its nuclear program than the United States had suspected, including acquisition of centrifuges that could be used to produce highly enriched uranium.

Given Kadafi's history, weapons inspectors will need to remain focused. In a rare appearance in the White House press room, President Bush acknowledged as much when he said, "Because Libya has a troubled history with America and Britain, we will be vigilant in ensuring its government lives up to all its responsibilities."

Libya was one of a small number of nations in the world that had refused to sign the treaty banning chemical weapons. In its war with Chad, Libya became one of a very few states to use such weapons in 1987. They were mustard gas bombs, supplied by Iran. Intelligence agents have said that Kadafi once tried to recruit South African scientists to assist him in developing biological weapons. American intelligence officials concluded earlier this year that a senior scientist who once led Iraq's germ weapons program had tried to emigrate to Libya in the mid-1990s.

If Kadafi follows through on his promises, the Bush administration (along with its equally steadfast partner, British Prime Minister Tony Blair) can rightly claim success for the proper use of force, power and resolve against those whose sole "weapon" is diplomacy, aided by the feckless United Nations. The only thing a bully understands is a fist in the face instead of a shake of the hand and meaningless signatures on documents recording promises they never intend to honor.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein, some of the leading Democratic presidential candidates continued to say that while they are grateful Saddam is gone, they would have done it differently. Now that another of the world's terrorists may have been neutered by the powerful American and British weapon of joint resolve, will Democrats who want to be president say they would have followed another path? Not unless they want to go against the repentant New York Times.

[Tigermike 3,710]

Yeah but Jenny don't you know Kadafi doing this will not make America any safer than capturing Saddam did. Just ask Dr, Dean.

[Tiger Al 0]

Mike, if the capture of Saddam made us safer, why did the administration RAISE the terrorist alert color (or whatever it's called) in the last few days??? If his capture made us truly safer, shouldn't it have gone down or at least stayed the same?

[Tigermike 3,710]

Good try Al, but don't you think one could be for the short run and one could be for the long run. The alerts are for the present. Capturing Sadam makes not only the US but the entire world safer in the long run.

[Tiger Al 0]

If he was such a huge threat to the US, and you dare say the WORLD, then it would seem that his removal would DECREASE the risk posed to the rest of us. Instead, we've moved up one color to ORANGE.

Let's see...Lee Boyd Malvo was a threat to the people in the DC/MD area. After his arrest the incidence of sniper shootings in that area went...down. Threat removed-Risk down. Saddam (threat) removed-Color (risk) UP???

[Tigermike 3,710]

You must really have a hard time merely walking thru the woods. Cause you would stop and argue with every stump in the forest.

[Tiger Al 0]

You must really have a hard time merely walking thru the woods. Cause you would stop and argue with every stump in the forest.

Yeah, well there wouldn't be any stumps if logging companies weren't allowed to plow through perfectly good forests!!!

It doesn't add up that to remove a threat would increase the risk level.

My assertion is that Saddam wasn't the imminent threat to us that he was made out to be.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

could it be, TA, that there were MORE than ONE SINGLE threat to the US?

quite possibly, TWO or THREE?

you can look at the irony of the capture & subsequent raising of the alert as being proof that saddam wasn't a threat to the US, and that's your perogative...

i'm looking at it as, 'one down, 1,000 to go...NEXT!'

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, by the time you get to number 500 you'll really have to get creative with the terrorist color code thingamabob if they increase it everytime one's caught!!!

[CShine 0]

Some of the stuff I've read about this says that Libya's WMD program had already pretty much stalled and wasn't producing much of anything of real importance, and because of that, Qaddafi really isn't giving up much at all. And in return for giving up something that was of little value to him, he's getting access to whole a lot of lucrative international business opportunities. Looks to me like he's just trying to manipulate things to his advantage and get more back than he gives up.