Indyk...professor of history revision, University of Sinkspillage..
Brookings is a liberal think tank.
That's all I have to say.
This is pure spin.
Yeah right. Now you Clinton lovers decide to say this...the fact of the matter is this, Martin--Qadaffi surrendered to Bush and Blair after he saw what happened to Saddam Hussein. You appeasement pantywaists in the Democrat party (my former party, by the way) had no effect in persuading him whatsoever. Your approach, however well-intended (and I question that sometimes) is worthless and weak.
I might add, your pathetic attempts to "negotiate" with North Korea also added to the danger in the world today. You aided and abetted a terrorist regime by not verifying their compliance. Oh yes, you trusted Jimmy "Massive Failure of a Presidency" Carter and Madeleine "Cleaning Woman" Albright to negotiate with these guys who starve their own people. Real smooth move, ExLax.
Tell you what, Martin: why don't you quit pretending to be someone who gives a damn about keeping America safe, and just move your residency to France and stay there. We'll all be happier.
Pathetic, desperate spin.
I didn't find this article very persuasive. There are some fairly obvious problems with Mr. Indyk's argument.
For instance, Indyk says that Libya's "nuclear programme barely existed" in 1999 when Libya supposedly offered to the Clinton Administration to shut down its WMD programs. But that statement does not accurately describe the three most striking and important aspects of this breakthrough: 1) that we had no idea that Libya had any nuclear weapons program at all when Gaddafi revealed it last December; and 2) that Libya's nuclear program was, in fact, very advanced; and 3) that Gaddafi revealed and offered to give up that secret and very advanced nuclear program only after our GIs killed Saddam's sons and dragged him from his hole.
Mr. Indyk was a Clinton Administration official. I don't think any unbiased observer believes that Gaddafi would have given up his nuclear weapons program if we had not gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Col. Gaddafi is a cold-blooded killer, and a certifiable nutcase. He is the guy who, when asked about the reports of cannibalism by his fellow Moslem, the late Ugandan dictator Idi Amin Dada, replied with unintended irony that he (Gaddafi) was not concerned with Amin's "internal affairs." The thought that Gaddafi could have soon been able to ship a nuclear device into New York or San Diego or Houston harbor in a cargo container should scare you to death.
Note, too, that along with his own nuclear program, Gaddafi gave up the whole Khan/Farooq nuclear smuggling network. That was a huge breakthrough, which certainly helped to make us (and the rest of the world) a lot safer.
During the Clinton Administration, Gaddafi was working hard to become a nuclear power, and was successfully keeping that effort a secret from the West. We know, for instance, that Libya's contacts with rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan go back at least to 1997.
But after what we did to Saddam, Gaddafi apparently (and correctly) calculated that as soon as his nuclear program became known, he would become target #1 for the U.S. military, and realized that would be a disaster. During the Clinton years, all the world knew that Saddam kept firing missiles at U.S. planes (among many other provocations) with very few repercussions. No wonder Gaddafi didn't fear us then. But when we took out Saddam all that changed.
There is a tendency, lately, to lump all WMDs together, as if they were all equivalent. But they are not. Chemical weapons are much less dangerous than biologicals, which, in turn, are much less dangerous than nuclear weapons.
In Iraq, chemical weapons were a significant concern because of Saddam's history of using them for genocide, and Iraq's geographic location, and the danger that Saddam would use them against his neighbors (again), or against us when we finally decided to cease putting up with his constant provocations. But chemical weapons in Libya are not nearly such a big deal, because those concerns do not apply. Consequently, Libya's offer to join the Chemical Weapons Convention was also not such a big deal.
Nukes are a much, much bigger deal, but Indyk treats them as if they were no different from chemical weapons. He says, "Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programmes more than four years ago," but when you read the rest of the article you find that the only WMD programs Gaddafi actually offered to give up back in 1999 were chemical weapons programs.
The Bush breakthrough wasn't that Gaddafi gave up nerve gas, it was that he gave up nukes. For Indyk to blur that distinction seems disingenuous.
-Dave
He must get his news/info from the mass media.
Freepers such as quidnunc keep me better informed. Though I can't find the FR URL for this article again, it was an eye opener for me.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/072904B.html
Here's another odd thing in Indyk's article. He wrote that "in Geneva in May 1999, we used the promise of official dialogue to persuade Libya to co-operate in the campaign against Osama bin Laden..." Yet we now know that the Clinton administration did not have a campaign against bin Laden, at least not much of one. In fact, they repeatedly refused to take action against him, when they had the chance; see, for example: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9721
-Dave
I think this falls under the category "so dumb only an intellectual could believe it."
Bush invades Iraq, Libya immediately caves - coincidence.
Reagan changes America from a policy of appeasement to one of confrontation in the Cold War, Soviet Union falls a few years later - coincidence
Clinton recession started in late 2000 while Bush is still governor of Texas. Shortly after coming into office 9/11 occurs - any economic problems obviously Bush's fault.
Have I got this one about covered here?
Well, then why the hell didn't it happen? Clintoon to busy crawling around the wh with his pants around his ankles and maddie trying to figure which way was up?
Thanks for the post. Typical Clinton trash-talk, however.
1) Mr. Qaddafi gave up his nuke program TEN DAYS after Saddam came up out of the spider hole.
2) On pages 207-208 of Karl Zinsmeister's book "Dawn Over Baghdad", it states: Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi telephoned Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi last year and told him, "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq and I was afraid."
These Clinton folks are pathetic. Next, they'll be claiming they were behind toppling Saddam Hussein. Absolutely pathetic.
Indyk is deceptive in his analysis and false in his conclusion. Years of fruitless negotiation with Libya were suddenly successful only after the taking of Baghdad and Saddam's capture. Kenneth Timmerman has the details.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/30/World/How-George.W.Bush.Got.Qaddafis.Attention-632702.shtml