Posted on 12/26/2003 1:46:10 PM PST by Scenic Sounds
Moammar Gadhafi had a message this week for Kim Jong Il, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad.
North Korea, Iran and Iraq "should follow the steps of Libya," he said, "so that they prevent any tragedy being afflicted upon their own people."
Gadhafi's remarks follow his surprise agreement – announced by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair – to disclose and dismantle the North African country's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
Libya's leader wisely recognized that President Bush meant what he said in the days following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. "Every nation and every region now has a decision to make," Bush declared. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Neither the Taliban in Afghanistan nor Saddam Hussein in Iraq took the United States seriously. So now those fallen regimes have been consigned to the dust bin of history.
Some suggest that American-led regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq had little or nothing to do with Gadhafi's decision to seek rapprochement with the United States. They suggest that the Libyan leader's welcome decision to forswear unconventional weapons, to renounce terror is as a triumph of diplomacy over military threat.
That's just so much hogwash.
For the fact is, two decades of economic sanctions against Libya, two decades of international isolation of Tripoli, hardly deterred Gadhafi from pursuing his weapons programs, from subsiding terrorists.
But when Bush put the rogue nations of the world on notice, when the U.S. military started to kick tail and take names – first the Taliban, then Saddam – that got the Libyan dictator's attention.
Indeed, it hardly was coincidental that Libyan envoys first approached the Bush administration and the Blair government about a disarmament deal in the days leading up to the Iraq war.
Nor was it coincidental that Gadhafi actually agreed to the deal, in which Libya's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs will be eliminated, a week after Saddam was dragged out of the "spider hole" in which he was hiding.
Of course, there are some war critics, some Bush-bashers who will refuse to acknowledge that America is safer now that Libya has forsworn unconventional weapons, has renounced terror. Much as they refused to acknowledge that America is safer with Saddam's capture, with regime change in Baghdad.
They fail to see – or refuse to see – the connection between the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the gathering threat of terror.
As President Bush explained, the terror attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. "revealed a future threat of even greater magnitude," of even greater horror.
"Terrorists who killed thousands of innocent people would," he said, "if they ever gained weapons of mass destruction, kill hundreds of thousands – without hesitation, without mercy.
"This danger is dramatically increased, he continued, "when regimes build or acquire weapons of mass destruction and maintain ties to terrorist groups."
That's why anti-war critics are so myopic to suggest that Saddam posed no threat to the security of the American people, to insist that the United States need not have removed him from power.
Saddam fully intended to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction. And one day he would have put a chemical, biological or chemical weapon in the hands of terrorists who would use it against either the United States or its allies.
After all, he thought nothing of paying the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers $10,000 to $25,000 to kill innocent Israeli citizens.
Gadhafi was once as despotic as Saddam, Libya once a state sponsor of terror like Iraq.
The Libyan leader has renounced his past. His country has "begun the process of rejoining the community of nations," as Bush attested this past week.
Kim Jong Il, Ayatollah Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad would do well to follow Moammar Gadhafi's example.
Perkins can be reached via e-mail at joseph.perkins@uniontrib.com.
It is the ultimate irony that an insane dictator can articulate so clearly what some of our overeducated morons, some in high places in government fail to see:
Death and destruction inflicted on a people as a result of their government's actions cannot be blamed on the attackers. Support, even by acquiescence, has deadly consequences. Rightfully so.
I am sickened by our domestic ignorant mindless smug moralists who mindlessly throw out that worn out phrase, "innocent women and children". Men exist everywhere. Including stupid ignorant savage primitive men. And they routinely bring death and destruction to their own people.
Not according to Coward Mean.
I think the next five years will see Iran move closer to a democratic form of government brought about by their own internal struggles. In 1979 students were chanting "Death to America". Today they are bucking their own system and no longer harbor as much hatred toward us. Seems that an intolerant Islamic government isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
I say he's still a flake. As long as his actions are genuine.
He has Islamist crazies after his rear now anyway, He's probably just jumping sides in an attempt to prolong his own life.
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.