John McCain Has a Lot To Answer For on Libya

McCain calls the Libyan rebels his “heroes.” A year and a half earlier, in Tripoli, he described Gaddafi as America’s friend.

Senator John McCain’s description of the Libyan rebels as his “heroes” has raised numerous eyebrows. PJM editor David Steinberg has had the excellent idea of seeking comment from the senator’s office on the extensive video evidence of atrocities committed by some of the senator’s newfound “heroes.”

While one is at it, the senator should probably also be reminded about this: namely, his cordial handshake with Muammar al-Gaddafi in Tripoli in August 2009.

There is more here, including McCain’s allusion to the “spirit of mutual respect and friendship” that prevailed during his meeting with Gaddafi and other members of the Libyan leadership. In preparation for his 2009 visit to Tripoli, the senator received a U.S. State Department “scene setter.” The leaked briefing has been published by the Daily Telegraph. In it, the State Department identifies the Libyan government as “a critical ally in U.S. counterterrorism efforts” and notes, furthermore, that Libya “is considered one of our primary partners in combating the flow of foreign fighters.”

By the “flow of foreign fighters” is presumably meant the flow of foreign recruits to join al-Qaeda in Iraq. The senator’s new-found “heroes” will not have been particularly good allies or reliable partners in this respect. On the contrary, as I have discussed here, the eastern Libyan heartland of the rebellion was in per capita terms by far the largest supplier of foreign fighters to al-Qaeda in Iraq. One rebel military commander, Abdul Hakim al-Hasadi, has even admitted to having served as a recruiter of such fighters. Before that, al-Hasadi fought against American and coalition forces in Afghanistan. (See my PJM report here.)

On his own account at a press conference following his 2009 meeting with the Libyan leadership, one of the main topics of discussion was the sale to Libya of “non-lethal defense equipment” — whatever that is supposed to mean. The State Department “scene setter” speaks rather of the ordinary lethal variety. But the Senator did at least mention American concerns about the “status of human rights” in Libya. According to an AP report at the time, one particular area of American concern was the treatment of “ethnic minorities.”

Apropos this issue, once the senator has viewed the video clips of black Africans being lynched, beheaded, and otherwise abused by his “heroes,” he might want to tell the American public what kind of future he foresees for black Africans living in a Libya ruled by them. The five videos I presented in my PJM report on rebel atrocities only represent a fraction of the available evidence. I would be happy to provide the senator’s office additional examples.

It should be noted that to the degree that the black African victims of rebel atrocities are even acknowledged, they are typically described as “African mercenaries.” This is in keeping with rebel authorities’ own account of the conflict and the designation frequently serves as a sort of rationalization of the mistreatment that black Africans have suffered at the rebels’ hands.

But prior to the outbreak of the rebellion, an estimated two million immigrants from sub-Saharan African countries already lived and worked in Libya. As Chadian President Idriss Déby has pointed out, it is entirely possible that some of these immigrants ended up joining the regular Libyan army. As noted in my report, one of the victims of some of the most horrific abuse documented in the videos appears in fact to have been a Libyan citizen and a member of the regular army.

The rebels, in any case, make no secret of their disdain for Muammar al-Gaddafi’s well-known pan-Africanism and they have evident trouble hiding their racism toward black Africans in general. For example, one post on the “pro-revolution” website Feb17.info helpfully offers a selection of translated slogans to be chanted at solidarity protests around the world. The slogans include “oh Gaddafi king of the afro, you will now see the [real] Libyans” and “oh Living, oh Sustainer, the afro will die today.” (See the Google cache here.)

He needs to retire.

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. By Praveen Swami, Nick Squires and Duncan Gardham 5:00PM GMT 25 Mar 2011

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

Your brave heroes who killed Americans in Iraq, John Mc Cain.

Again, as with most “western” leaders, it is not their current support for the “rebels” it is their moral relativism and their hypocrisy concerning dictators that they have engaged in for years.

The hypocrisy and moral relativism lies in the facts:

In 2003 the U.S. put itself on a different path in its relations with Ghadaffi, in honor of Ghadaffi turning over his WMD materials to the U.S. and Britain.

Before 2003, throughout 2003 and since 2003 there was nothing different about Ghadaffi, his tyrany and the homicidal nature of his regime, than there is today. It was as true then as it is now.

The only gift the U.S. and Britain should have given Ghadaffi in 2003, in exchange for his WMD materials, was the continuation of his life on this planet.

“A year and a half earlier, in Tripoli, he [McCain] described Gaddafi as America’s friend.”

A year and a half earlier there was nothing different about Ghadaffi, his tyrany and the homicidal nature of his regime, than there is today. It was as true then as it is now.

In February of this year, Obama was going to increase foreign aid to Ghadaffi.

Two months ago there was nothing different about Ghadaffi, his tyrany and the homicidal nature of his regime, than there is today. It was as true then as it is now.

How can anyone in the west now claim a “right” to depose the regime of Ghadaffi? On what basis? If that basis is supposedly that he is a homicidal tyrant, that has always been true about Ghadaffi. So, we have always had a “right” to depose his regime? Anytime in the past? That has to be their argument because nothing about Ghadaffi today is different than anytime in the past. If we had such a “right” then why was “regime change” NOT “the west’s” call against Ghadaffi after Lockerbie? Was it not their “right” then?

That can be only a convenient, hypocritical, self-serving argument today because the immediate actions by Ghadaffi now are nothing new; they are simply a more robust expression of the means of rule he has always used.

McCain is neither a Conservative or a Liberal; he is a populist and that is why he is always loved by the media so much. If they can whip up a cause, he will get behind it.

As far as whether or not we have a national security interest in deposing Ghadaffi, it depends on your basis of what you believe is our national security interests.

He poses no actual threat to us and no direct threat to any nation we have any “foreign entangling alliance” with. We do not need Libyan oil. He lacks the military means to be any threat to us. So, he is not a direct national security threat to the U.S.

He’s just a tyrant and he is currently putting down a rebellion. THAT makes him a national security interest to us?

If that’s the case then why are we trading with China, or even Vietnam today? By the same logic did not “the U.N.” have a “right” to take down the Chicom’s after Tiananmen Square in 1989? By whose claim? The same moral relativists and hypocrites we have running things today?

And don’t tell me that Libya represents the same kind of case as Iraq in 2003. It doesn’t.

Am I trying to make the case for “supporting” Ghadaffi? No. I am only saying that if we are going to make moral cases against homicidal tyrannous regimes, because of the very nature of those regimes, then we must do so uniformly, constantly and perpetually, without compromise or we have no claim to a “right” to suddenly, conveniently use that moral claim as grounds to literally depose them from power.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.