Skip to comments.Former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton Wants To Target Qaddafi For Assassination
Posted on 03/27/2011 9:29:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nationsand possible GOP candidate in 2012tells Lloyd Grove of his decidedly undiplomatic solution to the crisis in Libya: Assassinate the dictator. Plus, Babak Dehghanpisheh reports from Libya on the rebels' key victory in Ajdabiya. Former ambassador John Bolton, President Bush's decidedly undiplomatic envoy to the United Nations who is considering running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has a decidedly undiplomatic solution to the crisis in Libya: The United States should terminate Muammar Gaddafi with extreme prejudice. Speaking Saturday afternoon in Des Moines, Iowa, at Republican Rep. Steve King's Conservative Principles Conferencea cattle call for presidential prospects in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucusesBolton said: "Our military has a wonderful euphemism called 'national command authority.' It's a legitimate military target. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi is the national command authority. I think that's the answer right there." The red-meat applause line produced for Bolton, the longest of long-shots in the presidential contest, a rousing ovation from about 600 conservative activists filling up the grand ballroom at the Des Moines Marriott. "I think he's a legitimate target," the white-mustachioed Bolton told me after his speech. "That's what Reagan did in 1986"when U.S. jets bombed Gaddafi's residence in Tripoli, killing his young daughter, in response to a lethal terrorist bombing in Germany"and that would end the regime right there. He has murdered innocent American civilians. He has never faced responsibility for it. So I don't have any hesitation in saying that."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Hell, he won't even go after pirates on the high seas.
Who doesn’t? Only those who believe in honoring and sustaining the law.
I suspect that if Obama ever targeted anyone for assassination or “elimination,” it would be conservative Christian US citizens and patriots.
Bolton is unhinged to “announce” that.
Assassinate mo-mo and the rest of the muzzy leaders would absolutely freak out.
There he goes again, bad boy Bolton. Doesn’t he realize that we don’t target foreign leaders for assignation? Of course aiming a GPS guided Tomahawk missile through a bedroom window is quite OK. Fortunately for us, the no-nonsense Bolon never attended PC School
I would agree with Bolton, if he further said to assassinate the leaders of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood at the same time, I picture it like when Michael Corleone took care of “all family business.” (With Mullah Omar getting shot in the other eye)
So is “conservative” candidate Bolton now in synch or in league with Samantha Powers and Soros regarding the new globalist “Responsibility to Protect doctrine?
a) whack Muammar.
B) what is b???
One murderous islamist out, another murderous islamist in.
I think they would freek out less if it were a covert operation
Im not saying specifically target him for assassination. Im saying target his whole damn command and control for elimination with extreme prejudice.
The UN said we could!!
Obozo was quick draw McGraw on this one, now he needs to finish it.
He killed over 290 Americans, probaly more, assinate huim.
Execute Qadafi after tribunal, yes. Assassinate, no. If we start down that road we will regret it at our liesure. We are nurturing our own murderers lovingly in prisons all over the nation, and foreign ones in Gitmo are living better lives than our troops. A number of the “rebels” we are supporting now in Libya have, by their own admission, murdered American soldiers after being released from Gitmo. A brutal murderer of innocents in Iran has thumbed his nose at us for decades. Qadafi was useful to us, supported by us, armed by us, until a few short months ago. Now that Hilary has picked another favorite(most likely Al Queda) Quadafi must DIE and right now!
I suppose Obama was right. We are no longer a Christian Nation. Neither are we a nation that lives by rule of law unless it happens to fall in line with our agenda. When it doesn’t suit us to have honor, we put out a national contract on lives we consider expendable. What goes around comes around. What will you think when NATO decides an American doesn’t fit the agenda and is deemed unfit to live?
A Democratic Senator has already stated that Republicans don’t deserve Constitutional rights. The rest might might not be as impossible or as far away from happening as you might think.
If you're going to shoot, SHOOT, don't talk.
I can see Rush being on the top of his list and Sarah Palin
The only covert operations the U.S. Government can manage are the ones that will leave you standing in a gulag wondering WTF????
We do this all the time with Hellfire missiles that kill al Qaeda. Frankly, I’m for both.
Now this has negative consequences no matter what we do.
Thirty five years ago it would be just some raghead that fell off his camel and broke his neck.
Your argument in #15 sounds nice, but it may be obsolete.
As you know, modern warfare has slipped from historical black and white to near gangsta criminal activity: undeclared warfare conducted by armed civilians. The times have changed and the old rules of civility may no longer apply if a people are to survive.
If it was acceptable for snipers to take out young privates on the battlefield, then it was equally acceptable to likewise take out the private’s CinC.
If continuing acts of deadly aggression can be credibly linked to a particular head of governement, why shouldn't a similar rule adapted to realities on the ground prevail today?
I love Bolton... always have. He’s an extremely competent, “say it like it is” ballsy guy. However, some things are best left unsaid.
That is not to say that if I were King, that certain “leaders” around the world wouldn’t be neutralized.
we cannot rescue the world
and mark my words..all over the Arab world we will end up with worse than before
the left is fairly quiet on this but they howled over Iraq which was also to remove a despot
Let not your heart be troubled—The Brits or the French will do it for us—that or his own people.... What ever comes after the mad man will be an improvement. Even in Ben Laden himself ran the country it would be better—and I don’t think that will happen.
The news crews find him easily enough. All we need is a special forces news crew to get him laser designated for a surgical strike with minimal collateral damage...
It should be his own people.
Actually, a ME run by AQ would simplify things. We could indiscriminately bomb any city, in any of those countries, and be assured we were killing the right people.
Candidate? For what, and since when? First I've heard of it.
This kind of thing is better left to the private sector.
RE: This kind of thing is better left to the private sector
Can you name one company that’s willing to do it? And what’s the price for doing the job and who pays for it?
Well, if you begin with the premise that no one wants to off the guy, then maybe it’s a bad idea.
I don’t see Qadaffy as an islamist but as a narcissist willing to use islam to stay in power. Bolton is right though. Daffy deserves death for his involvement with the Pan Am bombing. We just need to make sure the Brotherhood and al Qaeda doesn’t move in afterwards.
So Big Ears has a plan for that?
Temple Owl wrote:
“I wouild shed no tears for Robert Mugabe,Kim Jong IL,Hosni Mubarak, Raul Castro Mahmoud Amandinedad, Muammar Al-Quaddafi or Hugo Chavez if they were done in. I’d probably go to sleep with a smile on my face.”
And millions of muslims go to sleep with a smile on their face thinking of 9/11 because they think we’re “The Great Satan.” Kill or be killed is the law of the jungle and beasts, not of mankind. I ask of you what I have asked before; if this is acceptable, why don’t we just kill all the convicted murderers on death row and all those known terrorists at Gitmo right now? It would save us loads of money and they wouldn’t be able to threaten anyone again.
If we assassinate Qadafi, it certainly won’t be because he has threatened America or his own citizens. We have allowed that for years, just as we have in other countries. Otherwise, we would have already done away with Amadidijad, Castro, and others already. If we assassinate Qadafi, it will be because he is a threat to France’s oil supply and we owe them a favor. We are witnessing the International Mafia at work. Not until we end up on the receiving end of their “business tactics” will America wake up and then it will be too late.
You makie good points. In retropect, would you have had Hitler assassinated?
frog in a pot wrote:
“Your argument in #15 sounds nice, but it may be obsolete.
As you know, modern warfare has slipped from historical black and white to near gangsta criminal activity: undeclared warfare conducted by armed civilians. The times have changed and the old rules of civility may no longer apply if a people are to survive.”
We have supposedly attacked Qadafi for “humanitarian” reasons because he has threatened his own citizens. Consider this: A Libyan General took command of a group of Qadafi loyalists and was ordered to quell the rebellion. They found a cache of rebel weapons in a small town. First, the town was stripped of everything considered valuable. Nine citizens were given a farcial trial and executed. Quadafi forces then burned the entire town to the ground.
Qadafi’s forces then began attacking soft targets, factories and food production sites. Qadafi declared that there would be no peace until everyone sympathetic to the uprising was destroyed. Every dwelling they came across was first stripped of its property then burned, leaving women, children and the elderly without food or shelter. All factory workers were ordered to be gathered up and shipped to locations making goods for Qadafi’s army. Children were separated from their mothers, never to see them again. Qadafi managed to quell the rebellion by decimating a large part of the Libyan population with his brutal assault against them. The suffering endured by women, children, the sick and elderly that were left without food, shelter or a means of living was monumental.
So, is the above enough to justify the assassination of the tyrant that ordered it? Does such treatment of one’s own countrymen to quell a rebellion merit death?
Please read my reply to “Frog in a Pot” and tell me what you think. I will answer further.
No, I would not have had Hitler assassinated, or anyone else. Had Hitler not carried out his own death sentence as he did; he should have been brought to trial before the nations he had committed atrocities against and executed by them after his conviction.
Once again you make a good argument, within the context of the facts you present.
Certainly Qadafi has the right to employ whatever means are necessary to protect his nation’s government. Arguably, other nations should not be involved in judging those means. Here, of course, we think of the U.S.’s war between the states; the intentional and wide-spread destruction and pillaging of private property and the brutal treatment and murder of southern civilians.
On the other hand, in the face of credible evidence that Qadafi was responsible for the deaths of many Americans in several bombings, and there was such evidence, then our government had an obligation to exact justice. The families of the killed Americans could have been privately and fully briefed by the highest levels of our government, and other leaders who might be similarly inclined could be provided with details sufficient to persuade them from future similar action.
Sending high-tech ordnance through his tent, while not very subtle, certainly captured the attention of other leaders. It was also an exercise that depended in a large measure on luck. Unless it was deemed in our national interest to leave him in power, we could have done better at less cost.
You have indeed followed my line of reasoning. The events I related actually happened and are a matter of historical record. I substituted “Qadafi” and “Qadafi’s forces” for the names of General James H. Lane and General William Tucumseh Sherman. They are related in The Conduct of Federal Troops, commissioned by Louisiana Governor Henry Allen during the Civil War.
Those heinous actions and more were carried out by the two Generals on the orders of The President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln against citizens of the States that attempted to rebel against the government.
Lincoln was assassinated. We have condoned the assassination of Qadafi for same while branding Lincoln’s assasination a murder.
I don’t maintain that Qadafi shouldn’t pay for his crimes. But to stoop to assassination would be tantamount to bringing ourselves to his level. If we believe in fair trials and the rule of law and order, we can’t make exceptions. By doing so, we would make all our posturing about “justice” a farce. I maintain that Qadafi’s assassination would be no less a crime than was that of Lincoln. No one, Obama included, has the right to try and convict anyone without representation.
I said you had a good argument if limited to your facts, essentially outsiders not responding to a government's despicable conduct within the borders of its nation.
I then argued the reasoning should be quite different if the leader of one nation kills civilians of another nation.
For instance, your view does not address what action is warranted in the event the U.S. is attacked by another nation. I argue a hit on Qadafi is warranted not because of what he is doing within his borders, but rather because of clear evidence he was directly involved in the murder of many Americans. There is no statute of limitations for such crime.
“For instance, your view does not address what action is warranted in the event the U.S. is attacked by another nation.”
The underwear bomber, and the Lockerbee bomber were accorded fair trials and convicted of their crimes. Why shouldn’t Qadafi be accorded the same rights? Again, we shouldn’t stoop to assassination and allow Obama to be the judge and jury. That’s to preserve our own integrity as much as to preserve our stance on human rights.
On another note; it will be a slippery slope indeed if we allow the UN to set this precedent and be judge and jury for the whole world. They will then be able to decide which ruler, president, monarch, emperor, etc. is acceptable to rule and which are worthy of death, The New World Order.
I don’t care to live under such concepts myself. I’m an American. Besides, just a few short months ago, Qadafi was accepted, given aid and comfort, along with lots of money, despite his past actions. That he has suddenly been marked for death by the Obama Administration stinks to high heaven! Something is rotten in Denmark for sure! We might find, with time, that Qadafi isn’t the only criminal in this scenario.
If a judge and jury are expendable for murderers, we should be able to cut down on our prison population and close Gitmo in short order.
Because brutal tyrants are typically unreachable at the time for the purpose of criminal prosecution, and Q perhaps remains unreachable.
More importantly, criminal prosecution is not the indicated remedy while the leader of a nation is killing citizens of another nation. Whether based on a declaration of war or, if undeclared, credible evidence of direct involvement, the remedy is summary execution as practiced in warfare on warriors that continue to fight. Think of it as a homicide which is justified if it occurs during the interruption of the felonious taking of another life.
You probably know that one of the reasons the U.S. did not assassinate Hitler when it developed the assets to do so, was because by that time he was a dopehead CinC that was better left in place.
With that, you get the last word.
My only comments on the unrelated side issues you raise are
a) to agree the UN has no place in any determination of what is in our nations best interest; and,
b) IMO, the Obama admin entered the Libya affair only after receiving the green light from its controllers; which, as the evidence suggests, views Qs fall to be helpful to the efforts by Al Qaeda and the larger moslem world to reshape the ME - the other Western nations involved certainly have different goals.
You can have it your way, but if I could have pulled trigger way back in 1936 Hitler would not have killed millions of innocent people who never got a trial. Same goes for Stalin.
How do you know that Himmler wouldn't have simply replaced Hitler and done the same thing?