In a statement issued today, Mitt Romney calls on the new Libyan government to extradite the Lockerbie bomber:
The world is about to be rid of Muammar el-Qaddafi, the brutal tyrant who terrorized the Libyan people. It is my hope that Libya will now move toward a representative form of government that supports freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. As a first step, I call on this new government to arrest and extradite the mastermind behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, so justice can finally be done.
Rick Perry focuses on how the end of Qaddafi’s rule should be a cause for “cautious celebration” in his statement:
The crumbling of Muammar Ghadafi’s reign, a violent, repressive dictatorship with a history of terrorism, is cause for cautious celebration. The lasting impact of events in Libya will depend on ensuring rebel factions form a unified, civil government that guarantees personal freedoms, and builds a new relationship with the West where we are allies instead of adversaries.
I’ll be updating this post with statements from the remaining presidential candidates as they come in.
UPDATE: Jon Huntsman, who opposed military action in Libya, is “hopeful” for the nation now:
The impending fall of Colonel Gaddafi is one chapter in the developing story of a nation in turmoil. Gaddafi has been a longtime opponent of freedom, and I am hopeful — as the whole world should be — that his defeat is a step toward openness, democracy and human rights for a people who greatly deserve it.
UPDATE II: Rick Santorum focuses on Libya’s future and stresses that President Obama “had little to do with this triumph”:
Ridding the world of the likes of Gadhafi is a good thing, but this indecisive President had little to do with this triumph. The stated task from the very beginning for this administration was to determine whether the US can positively influence the direction of the successor government. As we have seen in Egypt, the euphoria of toppling a dictator does not always result in more security for us and our allies in the region.
UPDATE III: Michele Bachmann repeats her opposition to the Libyan mission in her statement:
I opposed U.S. military involvement in Libya and I am hopeful that our intervention there is about to end. I also hope the progress of events in Libya will ultimately lead to a government that honors the rule of law, respects the people of Libya and their yearning for freedom, and one that will be a good partner to the United States and the international community.
Both offering are excellent...
However, in terms of political discourse, perhaps each can expand on how 'confused' this disastrous Obama foreign policy offering has been since it's beginnings. This was once peddled as the "no meddle" Obama mantra - which ironically provided a massive/expensive bombing campaign in Libya without any Congressional approval - a vivid war of choice. The entire Obama offering is just one big political lie.
There is a vast opening in political terms on the contradictory, hypocritical, incompetent, failure known as 'smart power'. Dangerous threats seemingly are endlessly appeased, Iran, Syria, etc., while some of the finest Allies are treated like dirt, especially Israel.
The fall of the Libyan Monster is welcome for all, but this potential was ironically provided by a massive use of military force, which is just another vindication of the same Bush Policies (* although incompetently handled by comparison) - the Obama Team repeatedly demeaned, rejected, vilified. Perhaps historic in the level of fraud - almost on par with the Clintons claiming there was "no genocide in Rwanda".
It is all a vivid swindle. As soon as Perry or Romney win the Presidency, Code Pink will return to protest. Cries of "warmonger" will suddenly return from the Democratic Partisan crowd, who remained silent while Mr. Obama waged "unilateral - illegal wars for oil".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo far it looks like Romney and Perry have forgotten to mention the successful policy pursued by President Obama.
Strange how that success was achieved without, as far as I can tell, a single American casualty.
I know that some of you armchair generals here at the corner are probably disappointed that we didn't cowboy up and spill some of our troops' blood since that makes things all the more glorious.
But I venture to say the public will not share that sentiment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, we are disappointed that we "cowboyed up" and rode drag. We should have done nothing and let France and Italy go get their own oil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this is what you call success, woe is unto us.
So this was a war for oil? So very insightful of you.
But where were you when we needed you, before we launched our glorious effort to topple Saddam over the non-existent WMDs, and so on?
You know, the one that really was a war for oil?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs to your denigration of the War against Saddam Hussein, perhaps the next time there is a risk of the presence and utilization of WMD's (following on the death by terrorism of 3,000 Americans), we should remain passive, as you suggest. No doubt, that would be Obama's elected course.
Yet it still puzzles me how to insure that the error of being wrong only falls on those who recommend passivity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon, where to begin?
Are you trapped in some 2002-03 time warp? Do you still believe all the pro-war propaganda peddled by the war-hawks before we invaded Iraq? Have you not grasped anything about how Bush misled the American people (and the Congress as well) into Iraq?
There was no connection between Saddam and the 9/11 atrocity. We would have been better off invading Saudi Arabia if we wanted to avenge that.
Saddam had no WMDs. The Bush Administration said they were certain that he did, based on the flimsiest of fabricated evidence, and then they kicked out the international weapons inspectors so they could start the war. Those weapons inspectors had found no evidence of WMDs. And they were proven right.
Iraq was the wrong war and was based on lies. Going into Afghanistan was the way to attack Osama's operations, but then Bush decided to have a useless war with Iraq.
After thousands of dead and maimed American troops, and no WMDs, don't you think you should make a study of the propaganda machine that caused all those casualties? Don't you think the suffering of our forces demands such a study?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does one know whether Obama's policy was "successful"? Apart from a defeat of US forces, just what in the playbook of the left constitutes a military success?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...mention the successful policy pursued by President Obama."
Isn't that sweet? Your own little "Mission Accomplished" sign.
There's a lesson here on premature gloating that I'm sure you might realize if your think a little more. Just sayin'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott, if we had more than 100,000 ground troops in Libya, and they would predictably be exposed to constant insurgent attacks over the next few years, I would agree with you.
No competent President would be so foolish as declare Mission Accomplished and then taunt the insurgents with "bring it on" when our troops were facing a future of massive casualties, deaths, maimings, and brain damage from IEDs.
Would any competent President do such a thing?
Of course not.
On the other hand, where a President achieves the desired result WITHOUT A SINGLE AMERICAN CASUALTY, and without any prospect that many thousands of our troops will be trapped in some hellhole like Iraq, I think perhaps he could modestly and properly claim Mission Accomplished without fear of contradiction.
I venture to say that the American public will agree.
Just sayin'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"where a President achieves the desired result
Please, share with us what the "desired result" is?
What is the benefit to America in Gadaffi's departure? How does that advance America's foreign policy interest or our security?
Gadaffi was a thug and bully, but he was also fully cooperating with UN inspectors, and in fact had become so helpful in our own war on terror that he was removed from the DoS State Sponsor of Terrorism list.
Yep, now he's gone, but then what? There is a decent chance, and perhaps even a likelihood that Gadaffi will be replaced by someone worse; Someone even more sympathetic to al Queda, and perhaps even al Queda themselves.
Than what? Do tell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon, read the statements made above by Romney, Perry, Santorum, and Huntsman.
Every one of them indicates that removing Qaddafi was a "desired result."
Why are you asking me why Obama and every GOP presidential candidate so far has desired the man's removal? I assume you are a Republican. You should be sending your complaint to those GOP candidates, don't you think? Ask them to explain it to us.
Those are the ones you should be having an argument with.
Unless you are a Ron Paul supporter. and then at least I can understand your position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do not understand Romney's point about bringing al-Megrahi "to justice"...we let him go. I agree that al-Megrahi is taking up too much space on this earth, but justice was already served.
What a stupid thing to say...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I agree that al-Megrahi is taking up too much space on this earth, but justice was already served."
First, we didn't let him go because we never had him. The UK wouldn't extradite him to the US because of our death penalty.
Justice has NOT been already served. For justice to be served, he needs to be delivered to the US where he will face a trial by jury of AMERICANS. THEN, and only THEN will justice be served.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse