Libya: US accuses Britain of legitimising Gaddafi

The Telegraph ^ | 2/20/2011 | John Bingham

[DeaconRed]

I doubt anyone who voted for ZERO will read this, but just in case here goes:
Do you now realize we have a complete idiot running our country?
Do you realize a community organizer is not qualified for president?
We have no foreign policy we have no domestic policy except to spend money we don't have.
Can America survive another 2 years with DUMBO?
Only GOD knows.

[trebb]

Mr Susman said: “I would suggest that to deal with him, to give him greater stature, greater ability on the world front to look like he is a good citizen is a mistake.”

That's right, but when Obama does it with his breed of terrorists, and marginalizes long-held allies, it's an act of benevolent genius.

[livius]

Gadaffi was a horrible dictator internally, but we had more or less tamed him in terms of his foreign aspirations and in fact Bush had forced him to disarm to a great extent (or at least enough not to be a threat to us).

I did notice that a couple of voices here and there (from within Libya) have declared that the Islamists are involved and are pushing for sharia. Gadaffi was not a mullah but a bizarre, crazy Oriental potentate, with his snappy all-girl security force, mercenary armies, and costumes straight out of the wardrobe room of a really bad B movie. He did the usual amount of anti-Western raving, but he continued to sell oil.

There are certainly many of the protesters, particularly in one of the cities that has a fair amount of Western influence, who are not Islamists and genuinely want a modern secular state that is not a dictatorship. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the Islamists end up with the power here because they are the ones who have the most unified agenda and also because they are probably receiving foreign support. There is so little reporting coming out of there that it is really hard to know what’s happening or who are the players.

I think Obama is on the fence. It is well known that the US (under Obama) knew all about and approved the release of the Lockerbie bomber, and in many ways, Gaddafi (a good friend of Hugo Chavez) was Obama’s buddy. But I think Obama would also like to see a solid radical Islamist bloc there and I think that because of his weird climate fantasies and hatred of oil and the modern societies it powers he actually wants to see the supply disrupted and reduced.

He’s not saying anything because he really doesn’t have to. It’s a win-win for him. If Gadaffi or his sons stay, they’re sufficiently anti-American and will probably become even more so, and even perhaps become more Islamist in orientation; and if the Islamists take over, that’s one more step towards the caliphate.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

The US shielded and supported IRA terrorists for a long time. So they don’t really have any moral right to bitch and moan about this. However, considering how many British citizens have been killed by Gaddafi’s regime (all those killed by IRA terrorists trained and supported by him, WPC Fletcher, the British passengers in the Lockerbie plane etc) the British government fundamentally betrayed its own people by supporting this douche, and that pisses me off more than what he did to American citizens...

[bruinbirdman]

"this might not be the ideal time to point a hypocritical finger at Britain and say "I told you so" either"

Which means there was an ulterior motive.

yitbos