Monday, December 5, 2011

Bush Made The Libya Model Possible

They say that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. And that's exactly what is going with Libya. Anyone who followed the events leading to the end of the Qaddafi's regime knows that it was Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron that led the effort. Barack Obama took great pains to make it clear to the world that the US role would be limited. That he would be leading from behind (i.e. not leading). Yet, as soon as the graphic images of the fallen dictator hit the Internet, the Obama sycophants quickly gave sole credit for the removal of Qaddafi to our president.

Of course, the Obama sycophants are betting on the American people forgetting that in May Obama sent a letter to Congress claiming that the US role in Libya was so limited that it did not require Congressional authorization pursuant to the War Powers Act. At the time, an administration official described the US role in Libya as “... a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”

Sorry Obama sycophants, "intermittent" and "support to support" does not qualify as leadership. And there is little doubt that had the mission been unsuccessful, Obama would have relied on "intermittent" and "support to support" to escape any blame.

Not satisfied with taking credit away from Sarkozy and Cameron, the Obama sycophants are holding up the "Libya Model" as the standard for removing dictators. At every turn they point out how Obama's Libya Model is superior to Bush's Iraq Model that cost so many American lives and treasure. But there is a little detail that Obama sycophants ignore: George W. Bush helped make the Libya Model possible.

Doug Mills/The New York Times
In 2004, President Bush toured
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
a nuclear weapons research site in
Tennessee holding some of the
materials  turned over by Libya
Shortly after the Iraq War, Qaddafi made a calculation that by giving up his nuclear program and forging closer ties with the West he would escape Saddam's fate. In 2004, the arsenal of WMDs turned over by Libya was more extensive that our intelligence experts estimated. (Why do our intelligence experts always seem to be surprised? But I digress). It included over 4,000 centrifuges to produce enriched uranium and blueprints for making a nuclear bomb.

Of course, it is impossible to know whether Qaddafi would have developed nuclear weapons during the last eight years. But he did have most of the ingredients and the recipe to do so.

In March, the New York Times reported: 
"Senior administration officials and Pentagon planners, as they discuss sanctions and a possible no-flight zone to neutralize the Libyan Air Force, say that the 2003 deal removed Colonel Qaddafi’s biggest trump card: the threat of using a nuclear weapon, or even just selling nuclear material or technology, if he believed it was the only way to save his 42-year rule."
Without his "biggest trump card" Qaddafi's threat to "Let Libya burn" had no teeth. NATO was able to implement the Libya Model. Had Qaddafi kept his arsenal in all likelihood he would still be sitting in his palace in Tripoli day dreaming about Condoleeza Rice.