The Wall Street Journal has been running an intriguing two-part series on its editorial page written by none other than Judith Miller (remember her? The New York Times correspondent who ran into trouble and spent some time in jail for refusing to divulge her source on the Valerie Plame matter?) Miller who was fired from her paper because she was too conservative has documented the case that proves the value of taking a tough stand on terrorism: that of the dictator of Libya. His decision to reverse his decision on the spread of nuclear weapons has prompted a resumption of full diplomatic ties between the U. S. and his country. It is a triumph of the bold approach that the president has applied—and nary a foreign policy expert has praised it, much less the mainstream media.
The stories certify that after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Gadhafi became convinced that his country was next. He had 4,000 advanced uranium centrifuges and enough quantities of enriched uranium to make a 10-kiloton bomb approximating Little Boy” which we dropped on Hiroshima. To those who say we should not have recognized Libya because it was responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing forget that this is a game of global poker and Libya has already paid $2.7 billion in compensation to victims’ families or $10 million per family. No amount can repay America for the loss of human lives but it shows that a country can come back, can be redeemed. Do you agree? Or do you feel we should never recognize the fact that Libya is trying to come back: stop sponsoring terrorism, stop threatening their neighbors. A good precedent for the future, no? Your comments.
Had we broken the main pipeline right after we concluded Libia took the plane down, the oil would have solidified in place. (Source was highly placed oil exec.)
ReplyDeleteHad that been done, the country probably would have had enough money to take tha A-Bomb route.