Tim Blair

You know, it's so obvious to me that a tough response is the only thing that people like Gaddafi and Hussein understand. I just don't see why the Left doesn't get this. If moral suasion worked, Carter would have talked them into submission 25 years ago.

And will the Left learn from Gaddafi's example? Not bloody likely.

Some of the Left gets it, but most of the Left thinks that the USA is an evil empire & lacks the moral authority even to swat a fly. The Left wants US brawn harnessed to EU brains—as if US brawn were not a reflection of US brains, & EU brawnlessness a reflection of EU brainlessness. The left tried to make Iraq into a wedge issue to do that. Some of the Left is unworried about the terrorists because it is too unimaginative to realize that the terrorists hate the USA for different reasons than the Left does. Some of the Left is unworred about the terrorists because it knows that the USA & its allies will defend against them & the Left, far from feeling gratitude, is mechanically seeking opportunistic political profit by hampering the efforts of the USA & allies.

Pretty momentous stuff happening. Sure Gaddafi has been negotiating for a while but why are we hearing so much less about Saddam’s briefcase than about George’s turkey? Methinks that was a billion-dollar briefcase. No, it was worth more than that.

>The Left wants US brawn harnessed to EU brains—as if US brawn were not a reflection of US brains, & EU brawnlessness a reflection of EU brainlessness.

That was very well put!

Thank you! I seem to have gotten away with leaving out a key “not” between “brawnlessness” & “a” & would have put it in had I thought of it.

In a way this good news could really be credited to the (almost) universal lefty European press. For two-plus years they've been describing President Bush as some crazy, belligerent cowboy. Someone who's as likely to bomb you as he is to look at you. Mohamar was just responding to those scary news reports he kept reading. As the current phrase goes, "it's all good".

Reagan had the same curious advantage from the press’s hysterics about his supposed war-mania.

I’ve read the Washington Post article on the Lybian announcement. It says that this has been in the works for nine months, since the time of the Iraq invasion. Doesn’t mention any role of Saddam’s documents. Maybe the documents provided us with some further verification. Anyway, it’s good news. We have so many fish to fry.

Re Gaddafi,

For a laugh, ask yourself what happened 9 months ago that might have started those negotiations.

Hint -

Wednesday, March 19 (Washington)

In an address to the nation from the Oval Office, President Bush announces
orders have been given to begin Operation of Iraqi Freedom, and acknowledges
the launch of missile attacks against "selected targets of military
significance" in Iraq.

http://www.ausa.org/www/ausanews.nsf/0/f3d0489518da8b9485256d2e006e634c?OpenDocument&AutoFramed

So Bush’s press-made rep as a war-maniac may have given him some extra edge, but the timing & Tim’s Berlusconi quote suggest that the decisive & incredibly effective invasion really made the difference for Gaddafy. Likewise, Reagan was painted as a war-maniac from the start, but it was his punishment bombing of Libya that made the difference back then for Gaddafy. These dictators are a lot more impressed by actions than by words, anybody’s words.

On the other hand, Reagan’s distorted reputation may have affected Kremlin perceptions.

Poor old one legged Gaddafi. He has completely gone off that "line of death" which was the best joke until Saddam came up with the "mother of all battles" phrase a few years later. He must have looked over and saw that Bush had a big ol can of whoop ass with his name on it and it was nearing its due date. Does this week get any better?

ForNow, I was reading an article about Jimmy Carter that suggested Iran released the hostages when he left office mostly because they were afraid of Reagan and what he'd do to them.

That, & they hated Carter & felt they had contributed to his loss of the election. They had to release the hostages some time, why put it off & have to deal with Reagan? And they weren’t wrong to fear Reagan, though if they thought he was ready to nuke or carpet-bomb Iranian cities, their fears were exaggerated. They timed the release with such precision in order to turn it into a jab at Carter.

George Schultz said that what really impressed leaders around the world & scared some of them, was that Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. Apparently most leaders don’t like to mess around with the air traffic controllers, who aren’t easily replaced if they go on strike, (&, besides, who knows what they’ll do while you’re in the plane). If Reagan stood up to them, he would stand up to anybody!

RC - I think you'll find that they released the hostages because they'd done a deal with Reagan to do so.

Mork, you're a meathead.

Mork, you're a meathead.