Would this have happened with Howard Dean as president? Not bloody likely.

I think its this is a great development (truly). I have been concerned for most of a decade about Libya's weapons program. There were credible reports that Libya had built an extensive underground tunnel network so it could proceed free from observation by satelites and free from aerial attack... Also LIbya had in the past supported terrorist activities, and provided a safe haven for the Lockerbie bombers.

Libya started to turn around by a combination of threats both passive (US carriers in the Gulf of Sidra(?)) and the very real (bombing quadaffi's residences) as well as international actions (the Lockerbie bombers where convicted in a FRENCH court cough, cough...) and sanctions.

International pressure and sanctions resulted in Quadaffi giving up his international terrorist activities and now apparently his WMD's presumably some of the (possibly unstated) quid pro quo on this one is that Libya wont be invaded.

HOWEVER- as the Heritage Foundation (right wing think tank) points out- "Colonel Gadaffi has built up a reputation as one of Africa’s most brutal and thuggish dictators. ". Quadaffi has used chemical weapons on Chad (which he invaded), and "sees himself as the natural leader of a future United States of Africa"- So he's the African version of Saddam Hussein.... and earlier this year the Heritage foundation called for sanctions to remain in place.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/wm329.cfm

What does this have to do with Bush?(beyond this being a success for diplomacy) Earlier this year Bush anounced our policy of promoting democracy formenting a "global democratic revolution".
Yet now a brutal dictator largely comparable to Saddam is being invited "to rejoin the international community." Presumably this allows Quadaffi to remain in power and continue to brutalize and opress his own people.

So my question- Whats the difference between Libya and Iraq and what does this tell us about American policy? Dont tell me that its becouse Iraq actually has WMD's- they are nowhere to be found and Iraq was allowing the UN inspectors to do their work. Additionally it is now clear that any 'evidence' of WMD's was largely indefinite. In contrast Libya actually is believed to have a stockpile of chemical weapons and was developing more. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/libya/index.html) If its liberating the Iraqi people as Bush NOW claims then why arent the Libyans worthy of being similarly liberated? ..It tells us that this idea that Bush and policy are driven by some ethical imperitave such as promoting democracy and liberating the people of Iraq is untrue. Witness Bush's recent willingness to shutdown the democratic impulses of the people of Taiwan...In fact foreign policy is driven as it always has- by the pragmatic- we deal with 'bad' countries becouse it makes sense to do so.
Perhaps this rough quote from a non american summarized our policy best:
"We watch the American government be friends with this dictator over here and support him, because he will give you the oil or minerals or something that you want, but then with this other dictator over there, who is not so friendly and cooperative, you will start talking about democracy just so you can get rid of him. This is so hypocritical, to use democracy this way, like a weapon. Do Americans think that the world does not understand what it is you are doing?"

If this is the case then is Iraq simply a matter of 'dont piss us off or we'll kick your ass?' thats hardly a policy, and is certainly not promoting a "global democratic revolution".

Personally I think this means we must resort to the traditional tools- multinational coalitions and action- tools which Dean and the rest of the democrats have supported and which Bush has impugned. But in the meantime lets just hope that Bush's alleged principals prevent black spots commited by Bush's ideological successors (Reagan cough cough..):

The WP goes inside with newly declassified documents—courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act—about SecDef Rumsfeld's 1984 trip to Iraq. Rumsfeld has previously said that the purpose of the visit was to "caution" Iraq about its use of chemical weapons. According to State Department cables, Rumsfeld was ordered to tell the Iraqis that despite a formal administration warning about their use of CW, the U.S.'s desire "to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing," was "undiminished. This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."

ABB04, this is getting tiresome. Handle WMD with war, we're doing it for Haliburton. Handle it diplomatically, we're in bed with the dictators. Grow up. Pick a coherent world view and stick with it. Why don't you bring up China? China has WMD, they're a foul tyranny, they've invaded and conquered people? Why not excoriate Bush for not liberating China?

Maybe it hasn't occured to you, that perhaps the Bush Adminsitration doesn't want any more wars on its hands than are absoultely necessary. And it OBVIOUSLY hasn't occurred to you that perhaps the only reason diplomacy is working with Libya is because we invaded Iraq. Qaddafi doesn't want to be dragged from a hole. He knows, and Bush knows, and China knows, that Bush can never liberate China. But he knows perfectly well that Bush is more than capable and willing to handle Libya.

As for Taiwan, Bush didn't squash anyone's democracy. Only the Taiwanese can do that, if they continually shoot their mouths off about how the US is going to kick China's ass if China doesn't let them be independent.

Ever see a little brother talk shit to much bigger guys, because his older brother will protect him? And how many unnecessary fights does that little brother drag the big brother into? Is that fair, or wise, to act that way?

Taiwan is a democracy on Chinese sufference. China don't the US don't want a war, and the government of Taiwan is stupid to do anything to rupture US-Chinese relations, because the biggest loser is going to be Taiwan. If the Chinese invade them, how many Americans and Taiwanese are going to get killed over it? A lot of Americans and probably most Taiwanese.
And the Rumsfeld message you quote isn't exactly a green light to use chemical weapons, no matter how much you may try to make it sound that way. And whatever guilt Rumsfeld bears in his dealings with Saddam, he's evidently changed his ways and parlty atoned for it by pushing for removing Saddam. If it were up to you, Saddam would still be there now.

As with Saddaam letting UN inspectors back in, MQ gives up WMD's. Both had plenty of time to do this under the "international diplomacy" era and did not.

Seems they did do both after they Rumsfeld and Bush talking and pointing at their borders.

Does the legitimate threat of force seem to be the reason why people listen to Bush and not the UN?

The UNSC lifted sanctions against Libya in September, and made Libya chair of the Human Rights Commission this year--without waiting for Libyan disarmament.

So, how has the UN, exactly, been tough on Libya AT ALL? Haven't THEY already "welcomed Libya into the community of nations"? Why is this all Bush's fault?

Bush and Rumsfeld at least got something out of Libya first. A pretty big thing, for a dictatorship; letting representatives of hated foreign powers wander about your country to verify that you are obeying their will.

Qaddafi has always used a lot of idealistic rhetoric. It may be possible he believes some of it. He may change his stripes, if the American boot be continually applied to his butt... we did the same with Chile and South Korea and the Phillipines.

Maybe that's too much to hope for. Qaddafi's a pretty bad guy. But he, unlike Saddam, is a rational actor, as we can see by his decisions regarding his WMD program.

This is a good day.

Oops. I don't mean to imply that the Security Council put Libya in as chair of the Human Rights Commission! The UNCHR did that: America and two other countries (Canada, Guatemala) voted no, the Western European countries, and others totalling 17, abstained, most everyone else (33) voted for Qaddafi.

On Martin Luther King's birthday.

New York Times editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/opinion/20SAT1.html

"Over the past five years, by turning over two suspects for trial, acknowledging its complicity in the Lockerbie bombing and paying compensation to victims' families, Libya finally managed to persuade the United Nations Security Council to lift the international sanctions that had shadowed its economy and its international reputation for more than a decade. Those sanctions were lifted in September. This page recommended lifting American sanctions as well, 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. "

There's absolutely no reasonable argument to suggest that it's America's fault for Libya having a Dictator. Nor should people pretend that America should go to war with every single dictator and remove them at the exact same time in order to follow President Bush's Doctrine.

Thinking that way means you know absolutely nothing about the Bush Doctrine than what keeps getting spoon fed to you by Liberal Press Sources.

Read a friggen Opposing Viewpoint's book before opening your mouth next time Mr. Anyone But the Best.

Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softy and carry a big stick" doctrine did in no way mean that Teddy went around to every single enemy nation and whispered threats at them while marching the military around the world.

We didn't need an invasion in Iraq to let Moammer know how big the US stick is. He's felt it before, up close and personal. DS2 just let him know whether this administration had the resolve to swing it or not. Libya and Iran together aren't yet enough to label a "cascade effect" but then the fat lady hasn't finished singing yet either.

Bush is on a big roll, Saddam captured, France, Germany and Russia agreeing to restructure Iraqi debt (coincidence? I think not, wonder what all was in that briefcase, eh?), Iran agreeing to tougher inspections and Qadaffi handing over his WMD programs.

The next few weeks could prove to be very interesting.

Thus sayeth AbBMMIV:

lets just hope that Bush's alleged principals prevent black spots commited by Bush's ideological successors (Reagan cough cough..):

Reagan succeeded Bush?!?

If anyone thinks that Gaddafi is looking out for anything but HIS OWN self-interests, they ought to consider his perspective. I think Bush and Blair are offering well-chosen words - as is Mr. Gaddafi. Perhaps his own people grow a bit anxious? He has so far managed to prop his butt up by stifling progress and harboring scum, but with a 'presence' such as ours in his 'hood, what else can the man do? The guy looks like a plastic gijoe (no offense to the commentor), and going for the LegitTrophy by renouncing WMDs and terrorism isn't going to spin his real intent any differently.

Fresh off Salam Pox' blog...

It was hilarious listening to the son of Gaddafi yesterday. He is called "Sayf el Eslam" (i.e. the sword of Islam), and it looks like he is the Libyan version of Uday Saddam Husein. maybe not that bad .. whatever .. He was giving us a classical piece of Arabic speeches, but it sounded more rhythmic than usual.
"Arabs" he said "proved they cannot be trusted".
cool man! go on!
"If we take a look on what happened in Iraq, who was responsable of the entire game? who destroyed Iraq? HIS NEIGHBORS .. they were the spear head".
Didn't everyone enjoy the "spear head" part?
"Why do you think we started these weapons programs from the first time? do u believe they were for us? for Libya? Naaaah.. they were for the Arabs.. we wanted to defend them" ..
umm?? so?? what happened now dude?
"...but now .. you know .. we prefer to think about our country, and about our AFRICAN neighbors"
So Africa is the new trend. And .. it seems that all other missiles were there to defend Arabs, that's the only reason why Gaddafi and his son decided to destroy them all.

Uhhh. My question is - WHAT HAS CHANGED IN LIBYA?

My answer? Not a damned thing has changed in Libya. Gaddafi is STILL a thug and a tyrant. He apparently has a son who fancies himself to be a defender of... Arabs AND Islam? Give me a freakin' break.

Well, Cap'n, if they follow through on their WMD pledges, THAT at least will have changed in Libya.

Know what bothers me most? Until the announcement of the WMD agreement I didn't know Libya even HAD a nuclear program.

Gabriel What doesn't surprise me is that HE HAS BEEN LYING about having an active program, and EVERYONE believed him. What he does admit to is having a centrifuge program, but denies that any enrichment took place. International inspectors have examined at least ten sites in Libya so far, and seem to account for the 'truthfullness' of his denials. [That comes from a WSJ article of the 23rd of December.]

If you would be unloved and forgotten, be reasonable.

Those darn Libyans or whatever they are knew that our couragous and intelligent leader, the Mr President himself, George W Bush was going to open a can of whoopass on their African, Arab, Chinese or whatever country.

Where the hell is Libya anyway?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: