You know, it frustrates the heck out of me that nobody in the Bush Administration ever uses the Libya "success story" in its defense in the War on Terror. IF NOTHING ELSE, toppling Saddam Hussein and getting Libya to abandon its nuclear weapons program (and uncovering A.Q. Kahn's [sp?] nuclear trading network) justifies our efforts to date on the W.O.T. The other successes (Afghanistan, Lebanon's embrace of democracy, isolating the PLO, pulling Pakistan into at least some cooperation in the W.O.T.) are other important accomplishments -- but the risk is if America doesn't show the will to stay the course. One crummy successor to Bush and all this accomplishment (and the related sacrifice) can and probably will be squandered.
Why doesn't the Bush Administration make this case?????!
Agreed, this all frustrates me to no end - I cannot comprehend why the administration is so silent about this great success story unless they have some great secrets to preserve about how far along Libya really got (maybe VERY close) or what their sources were, who helped us to crack the case, etc. I would think that by now a lot of the Libya story could be told publicly, but maybe we made secrecy commitments to other governments, intel agencies, etc.
This is the reason I no longer loudly defend the Bush Administration's original reason for going into Iraq -- to destroy Saddam's WMD program and to keep these weapons out of the hands of international terrorist groups. If the Bush Adm. won't defend itself and it's policies, why should I?
Their puppetiers don't want a show of too much conservative successes because it isn't in their interests.