"Over the past three decades, Libya’s human rights record has been appalling. It has included the abduction, forced disappearance or assassination of political opponents; torture and mistreatment of detainees; and long-term detention without charge or trial or after grossly unfair trials." Human Rights Watch
I'm trying not to forget, by the way, that I was wrong about Afghanistan.
February 2007: Wow. If you actually look up what I said about Afghanistan... well, here it is:
There are good reasons why the U.S. would not want to invade or occupy Afghanistan or Iraq or Yemen or whoever. It would take a long time, and there would be an enormous cost in lives. It would likely introduce instability into a potentially volatile region. It would create a large pool of new, future terrorists. It would create alarm and concern in China and Russia and Pakistan. If the U.S. occupied the nation, it would have to constantly contend with terrorists and insurrectionists.
It would result in disaster.
How about that? I was wrong. I was wrong when I thought I had been wrong about Afghanistan.
In January 2003, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights elected Libya to the rotating chairmanship.
This really is like putting a McDonald's cook in charge of the Gourmet Diners Association. Is there something I don't get about this process? Is there some strategic thinking here that I don't understand, like giving the Olympics to China in 2008? Will Libya try to set an example for the world by releasing all their own prisoners of conscience?
Who is in charge of this? Someone should be sacked.
Bush toots Libya as a model of how a bit of forthright action can impress other countries and achieve American foreign policy goals without further expenditures of men and materiel.
The trouble is, exactly what have we got from Libya? Libya says that they will no longer pursue weapons of mass destruction. Libya, however, is still under the rule of Muamar Qadhafi and his secret police and terror squads. Now, Bush is telling us, all is okay?
There is a problem, isn't there? Bush said he was going to invade Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction. They didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, but that's okay: we invaded because Saddam Hussein is a cruel tyrant with an appalling disregard for human rights. He imprisons and murders his own people. He has crushed all political opposition and thrown his political opponents into prison. He has suppressed a free press and he has destroyed his nation's economy.
Just like Qadhafi.
Does anyone realize that Bush has been out-snookered by Qadhafi, who appears to be making a few smart movies. Qadhafi seems to have guessed that Bush doesn't really care about democracy or human rights or torture or murder. Give Bush a public relations gift, announce that you are no longer pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and maybe he'll leave you alone.
Bush, so far, has played along. Or is he really that dumb?
Is Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia paying attention? Some kind of public obeisance, especially in this election year, is certainly called for. Get the horn to Karl Rove and ask for a sample text and a knee pad. You have no idea of what you have to gain. Play hardball. Demand some trade concessions while you're at it-- this is an election year, dammit!