Posted on 04/04/2006 11:44:16 AM PDT by jmc1969
Will we be hit again? With ruins still smoldering at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, that was the question on the mind of every American in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. But it also appeared to have been a major concern of none other than Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi.
Qadhafi — who was behind the Pan Am 103 bombing that killed 270, as well as the 1986 bombing of a Berlin disco that killed three — was "hysterical" with fear that he'd be targeted by the U.S. for vengeance after the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, according to a newly declassified Sept. 20, 2001, cable from the U.S. Embassy in Egypt.
Concerned that the U.S. would attack Libya again. Qadhafi began to "call every Arab leader on his rolodex". U.S. embassy officials were told "that Qadhafi had sounded hysterical in his telephone call to [Jordan's] King Abdullah, as if only the King's personal intervention would prevent U.S. action."
The cable puts a new perspective on Qadhafi's renunciation of his nuclear weapons program in December 2003, after starting talks on the matter around the time U.S. bombs were beginning to fall on Baghdad in March. At the time, the Bush administration hailed Qadhafi's move as proof that its tough tactics against countries with weapons of mass destruction was working. But this cable shows that Qadhafi was gravely concerned about American intentions in the new global war on terrorism at least 18 months before the Iraq war.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Kudos are due the Reagan Administration as well for the black eyes they gave him before.
Good. He got the message loud and clear...
In other words, Time is giving Al Qaeda more credit than Bush for Qaddafi disarming.
Nice.
At the time, the Bush administration hailed Qadhafi's move as proof that its tough tactics against countries with weapons of mass destruction was working. But this cable shows that Qadhafi was gravely concerned about American intentions in the new global war on terrorism at least 18 months before the Iraq war.
As if to say, Iraq didn't matter. And then later this quote...
"I think the documents indicate that that's what speaks to them — force. Force and serious threats of force," Fitton says.
Force, which of course is what Afghanistan AND Iraq were all about.
Sounds like I'm not the only one who sees a little Reagan in W.
I think Qadhafi is playing Br'er Rabbit. Wouldn't surprise me if some of Saddam's WMD are in Libya.
Thanks to Reagan. It sure wasn't "democracy" that he dropped in Libya.
Iran, youre next! This is when we decimate your substandard navy, cripple your air force before it can even get off the ground and shove those "un defendable" "underwater" missiles up your @sses!
Sadly, nor in Lebannon either.
You'll get no argument there, that's for sure.
"Force, which of course is what Afghanistan AND Iraq were all about."
I wish that were true. But our restraint in Iraq since seems to point in the other direction.
I won't argue with that either. Nation building was always a Democratic ideal (look how quickly they dropped it). Still, a large presence in Iraq makes sense if we need to send sorties over Iran, Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East. Otherwise we are just sending million dollar missiles into aspirin factories again. When we finally did take places like Fallujah we showed the Muzzies that they won't be seeing another Black Hawk down. That was an important demonstration to the world. Now if only the Democrats would get it.
I wonder if he would have been that compliant if a milquetoast demwit was in the WH?
You have to be more specific, there have been so many... Carter, Mondane, Dukaka, Clinton, Gore, sKerry...
To me, the second sentence validates the first. The 'But' at the beginning of the second one is wishful thinking by the MSM.
The real problem is that we disbanded the Iraqi Army and security apparatus. The US Army was not designed to be the police of Iraq nor did we have the number troops in Iraq to do that if we wanted to. However, we had a indigious force that would have been loyal to whoever was paying them and we threw them out the door. They were begging us to let them come back, but Bremer said no he wasn't letting the Baathists back.
And, now three years later we are all but begging the Shia to allow Baathists back into the Iraqi security forces.
read above
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.