Skip to comments.
Bush on a roll
Washington Times ^
| 12/24/03
| Cal Thomas
Posted on 12/23/2003 11:08:01 PM PST by kattracks
First Saddam Hussein falls to the Bush Doctrine, and now Libya's dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, 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 has been up to for the last two decades.
The New York Times had advised a different course of action. The newspaper editorialized 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 Col. Gadhafi 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrine; calthomas
1
posted on
12/23/2003 11:08:01 PM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
"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.
Most worthy of a repeat.
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: kattracks
Bush on a roll Is that Kaiser, French, or Russian Rye?
-PJ
To: kattracks
but but but we didn't find any WMDs in Libya. Hans Blitzed didn't say that Libya conclusively had WMDs. How can we be sure that Libya even has them? Shouldn't we give them more time to figure out if they really want to get rid of weapons we aren't sure that they have?
5
posted on
12/24/2003 12:14:20 AM PST
by
tbeatty
(Sarcasm off now)
To: kattracks
"We've got to bring in the UN", say all nine ninnies.
6
posted on
12/24/2003 3:37:27 AM PST
by
samtheman
To: samtheman
The U.N. is a great resource... for translators.
7
posted on
12/24/2003 6:17:38 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: kattracks
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. I didn't know this. Always learning!
8
posted on
12/24/2003 6:20:03 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: kattracks
as a week long member of Rush 24/7,I sent an email
stating how we missed it . At least as far as the
news of last week ending. There were two articles as to why Kodaffi was neutered.....this is key freepers
we intecepted a ship from Libya BEFORE the first bomb fell on Iraq. That ship had documents and help for N Korea
and help for Iran.....Hmmmmm......We take EFFECTIVELY, N Korea and Iran outta the picture BEFORE we bomb Iraq.....
Sounds like a serious plan to me..........and the best part
Col Kodaffi had to just sit there and watch .
The actual time line of the war of terror is the
smoking gun to victory
To: Coop
The UN is a great resource for tin-horn dictators slurping at the international public trough.
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson