John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham are the Senate’s most energetic proponents of sinking the nation ever deeper into the Libyan morass. In a joint interview on Fox last weekend, Senators McCain (R., Ariz.) and Lieberman (I., Conn.) were breathless in their rendering of the “freedom fighters” and the “Arab Spring” of spontaneous “democracy.” Friday they upped the ante with a Wall Street Journalop-ed, rehearsing yet again what an incorrigible thug Qaddafi is and how “we cannot allow [him] to consolidate his grip” on parts of Libya that he still controls.
For his part, Senator Graham (R., S.C.) told CNN Wednesday that he would like President Obama to designate Qaddafi an “unlawful enemy combatant” with an eye toward legitimizing the strongman’s assassination. He and Wolf Blitzer discussed whether the hit could be pulled off by the covert intelligence operatives President Obama has inserted in Libya. The next day, in his plaintive questioning of Defense Secretary Robert Gates at a Senate hearing, Senator Graham wondered why American air power could not just “drop a bomb on him, to end this thing.”
Advertisement
As a matter of law, Graham’s proposal is ludicrous — no small thanks to federal law that Graham himself helped write, about which more in an upcoming column. What was especially striking about the hearing was the tone of righteous indignation Senators Graham and McCain took in whipping the Obama administration over government blundering.
But what about their own blundering? The senators most strident about the purported need to oust Qaddafi, to crush his armed forces, and to kill him if that’s what it takes to empower the rebels, are the very senators who helped fortify Qaddafi’s military and tighten the despotic grip of which they now despair.
It was only a short time ago, in mid-August 2009, that Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham, along with another transnational progressive moderate, Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), paid a visit to Qaddafi’s Tripoli compound. If they seem to have amnesia about it now, perhaps that’s because the main item on the agenda was their support for the Obama administration’s offer of military aid to the same thug the senators now want gone yesterday.
A government cable (leaked by Wikileaks) memorializes the excruciating details of meetings between the Senate delegation and Qaddafi, along with his son Mutassim, Libya’s “national security adviser.” We find McCain and Graham promising to use their influence to push along Libya’s requests for C-130 military aircraft, among other armaments, and civilian nuclear assistance. And there’s Lieberman gushing, “We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi.” That’s before he opined that Libya had become “an important ally in the war on terrorism,” and that “common enemies sometimes make better friends.”
On and on it goes, made all the more nauseating by the reality that nobody was under any illusion that Qaddafi had truly reformed. McCain made a point of telling the press that “the status of human rights and political reform in Libya will remain a chief element of concern.” Note the gentle diplomatic understatement: Qaddafi is — and was, as McCain well knew — a savage autocrat. Yet this brute fact was softened into “an element of concern” regarding “the status of human rights and political reform.” Pretty sharp contrast from the senator’s sardonic grilling of the U.S. defense secretary on Thursday. The McCain who was face-to-face with Qaddafi was very different from the McCain who today rails about Qaddafi. Back in the tent, none of his concern would dampen the cozy mood. The Arizonan swooned over “the many ways in which the United States and Libya can work together as partners.”
With respect Mr. McCarthy, where is Mr. Bush's mistake?
The bum has been killing his people ever since he got into power. The Euros would have had a fit if the US went to war because of the cozy relationship they had with him (give us oil, no new refugees, and we will let you alone). Bush then got the bum to give up his WMD's during his term.
Meanwhile, we fought two wars against people who were more dangerous to us than he was.
I'm sorry, I would love to rid the world of people like the Libyan scum. I'd rather start with the communists in Peking first. But to blame the problems Mr. Obama has with his stupid policy and intervention in Libya on Mr. Bush is wrong IMO.
True to fashion McCarthy's "analysis" of mccain's attitude towards Qaddafi studiously avoids mention of the thousands of libyans who marched for freedom on February 17 and were murdered as a result. Freedom is always a vital interest.
As usual, Mr. McCarthy hits the nail on the head, although in this case he couldn't miss. While the Senators' trip may have been in the news when it happened, I either missed it or have forgotten it. Another reason why pulling the lever for McCain in 2010 was just an anti-Obama vote.
The US policy towards Libya is a scandal that should be publicly aired. And as a conservative supporter of GWB & McCain, I say this problem WAS inherited by Obama - he only made it three times worse.
While Leiberman will soon be gone, we are unfortunately stuck with McCain (although the GOP leadership should marginalize him). As for Graham, it's long past time the SC GOP replaced him.
Someone has to say something about Sen. Rubio's aggressive pro-interventionist position.
In my book, his position destroys the case for his being on the ticket in 2012 or 2016. What a colossal misjudgement; what a lamentable vote in favor of empire instead of limited, republican government!
Sen. Paul, on the other hand, has got the conservative party line 100% right. It's not our fight! We don't belong there! Our involvement is a violation of the separation of powers!
Since it's long been clear that this administration has never learned the lesson of Bastiat's broken window fallacy, perhaps they viewed the aiding of Libya's air force and then shooting it down as part of the stimulus program?
@Publius, that's funny and exactly on point. Once again, Andy hits it right on the head, although amnesia and hypocrisy is the coin of the realm when it comes to politicians, so while not surprising, one still finds it nauseating. Digging the hole even deeper, Graham was on one of the shows this week saying that Conservatives shouldn't utter one iota of protest about the costs of the War since we didn't complain about Iraq. I would say many did, but even if not, as Andy notes here, many of us learn from our mistakes and I very much doubt, knowing the cost and toll of Iraq now you would get a majority of support to do it all over again. Plus, Sen. Graham (since one has to assume that he has some intelligence I guess) might want to look at what the national debt is now versus 2003, not to mention the value of the dollar. Things change and seemingly Sen. Graham seems to only want to acknowledge that we have a fiscal crisis when it's something he doesn't care about, but wants to seem to pretend it doesn't exist when he wants to spend the money. Again, the hypocrisy even by Washington standards is getting to be a bit much here.
First time I've seen something truly eye-popping (McCain response on 103 terrorist) from the wikileaks release.
Depressing to see confirmation again that McCain and Graham both play to the populist foreign policy winds.
If the point of this piece was to demonstrate the fallacy of the tired old "hypocrisy" analysis, it has succeeded. To point out that Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham hailed Qaddafi as an ally two years ago and call for his removal today does indeed make out a prima facie case of hypocrisy. But it doesn't tell us which policy is correct.
In fact, the United States' former alignment with Qaddafi was the correct policy. The details of its execution by Presidents Bush and Obama -- including the roles of these same Senators -- may not have been optimal. But would fewer Libyan jihadis have traveled to Iraq to attack Americans if, instead of Qaddafi, a democratically elected regime of theocracy and sharia had been put in his place? Would fewer Libyans have suffered violations of their civil rights, of maiming, imprisonment, and death, under sharia law, than has been the case under Qaddafi? It is extremely unlikely.
In fact, sharia law is far more insidious and powerful than any system of top-down secular repression could ever hope to be. It penetrates into every corner of every home, literally into every cradle. Every woman and every child -- 70-80% of the population -- is a mere object to be owned and disposed of according to the whims of the men in their lives. Likewise, the beliefs and the acts of every man are subject to the unceasing review and condemnation of his peers, with summary punishment meted out by whomever happens to be holding the strongest hand at that moment.
Our assessment of and our policy toward Qaddafi do not exist in a vacuum. They are a matter of weighing what we know about Qaddafi and what we know about the alternatives. The fact is that there is -- or as of early March 2011, there *was* -- no alternative more agreeable to American interests than Qaddafi.
Not to be all negative or anything but is McCarthy paid by the word or something? It seems that every column he writes is long-winded and repetitious. Though, as usual it is informative and well-reasoned. The reason I say this is that I've noticed the most influential things I've ever read have always been frank and to the point; the longer it takes to make your point the more muffled it ends up coming across.
Glad that someone is trying to blow the whistle on these phonies. Can anyone think of anything worthwhile that McCain and Lieberman have accomplished accomplished in their 70 or 80 years of Senate service? As for Graham, there is nothing like a lawyer, particularly a military one, telling us what our stategy should be.
As another long-winded lawyer, I rise to defend my brother Andrew from the insinuation that there's anything wrong with being long-winded.
If you're looking for foolishness and inconsistency, the U.S. Senate is definitely the barrel of fish into which you should shoot.
Of course Kadafi is, and has always been, an evil dictator and sponsor of terrorism. The rapprochement after he came to Bush and Blair in 2003, after Saddam was pulled out of his spider hole, was never more than a parole, Andy, and Kadafi has shown that we were unwise to grant it.
But that's not a good reason for letting him remain in power now. I know you don't like what we're doing, and I join you in lambasting the ineptitude and inconsistency of the Obama Administration. But I'm at a genuine loss to know what you think would be a better substantive course than forcing Kadafi out.
The coalition has to pull off a neat trick, in light of Gaddafi's earlier WMD concessions; he needs help arranging a suitable new place to pitch his tent...
McCain is a complete ignoramus when it comes to protecting US interests. Lieberman is a tax and spend liberal and Grahmnesty is a complete follower.
"Let's arm and train Al Qaeda!" is vintage McCain and why he is more dangerous than Obama in foreign policy. While Obama will "twist in the wind", McCain thinks that he won't be considered a "maverick" unless he makes lightning fast decisions with no information at all. America is so screwed.
As I understand it, there was no massacre in Libya -- the President specifically said that we were going in to prevent a massacre.
Of course there really was a massacre in Ivory Coast -- they found 300 bodies in one town just the other day. OK, all you Wilsons and Churchills, shall we send our forces there as well?
>"The rapprochement after he came to Bush and Blair in 2003, after Saddam was pulled out of his spider hole, was never more than a parole, Andy, and Kadafi has shown that we were unwise to grant it."
