corrente

YABL, YABL, YABL....

Of course we would expect Bush to claim that that the Iraq war brought success in Libya, and equally we would expect the lie to fall apart on close examination. Jennifer Loven of AP writes:

Announcing the Libya deal, Bush invoked the Iraq war that brought down Saddam Hussein as he issued a flat warning of "unwelcome consequences" for countries that do not follow Libya's lead.

But is the threat credible, given that we've tied our troops down in Iraq?

Many analysts say the war's aftermath has proved so difficult for the United States that other countries probably view U.S. military force as an unlikely option elsewhere right now.

"The plan was that Iraq was to be a message for everyone to either fall in line, or else," [Joseph Cirincione, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's nonproliferation project] said. "The problem is this threat is not very realistic."

British officials say that perhaps just as important was the long diplomatic process of getting Libyan leader Gadhafi to take responsibility for the 1988 downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Gadhafi initiated the weapons talks in March, amid the buildup in the Persian Gulf area to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The overtures came just after Libya agreed to a $2.7 billion settlement for the Pan Am bombing.

As a result, Britain pushed successfully for the lifting of U.N. penalties against on Libya, a sprawling desert country in northwest Africa.

Libya first contacted the British, not the Americans, noted Daryl Kimball of the private Arms Control Association. Also, Libya had worked for several years to shed its pariah status before Iraq became an issue.

See? Not even Bush's poodles believe him!




On to the next flimsy justification!