My Defense of Hillary Clinton for Libya Involvement

[louis c]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the driving force to encourage the rebels on the ground in Libya to take out Mohamar Gadhafi.

I believe that terrorists who kill innocent Americans should be held accountable. Gadhafi sponsored terrorism that took down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, in the waning days of the Reagan Administration. Gadhafi admitted his complicity in this dastardly act on 2003.

Let's look at the facts. Many of Americans died on that flight. Some service members returning home for Christmas and students from Syracuse University.

Donald Trump now says that it would have been better to leave Gadhafi in place. Does he think that Gadhafi should have been protected for killing Americans? Did he ever meet a dictator he didn't like?

Let's look at the facts. The worst terrorist attack against Americans was on September 11, 2001. A Republican, George W. Bush was the President who was assigned to keep us safe. The mastermind of that attack was Osama bin Laden. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton brought bin Laden to justice.

The second worst terrorist attack against American civilians happened under Ronald Reagan on December 21, 1988. Mohamar Gadhafi was the mastermind behind that attack. Once again, it was Obama and Hillary who brought that terrorist killer to justice.

Looking at these facts, isn't it clear that Obama and Hillary have proven to be a much better team in fighting terrorism and bringing perpetrators to justice than the Republicans, and especially Donald Trump?

[Press Virginia]

1. Libya now resembles Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. There is no defense for creating a failed state

so Europeans could have cheap oil any more than there's a defense for creating a failed state in Iraq.

I don't care who was president when what happened. Libya was a stable country that posed no imminent or immediate threat to US security and should have been left alone

[louis c]

2. Tell that to the parents of the Syracuse kids

[Press Virginia]

6. You think they support using their children to justify creating a failed nation

because Europe wanted cheap oil?
The relatives of the Lockerbie bombing were paid about 7mil per in compensation back in 2008.

[louis c]

10. No, for bringing their killer to justice

[Press Virginia]

12. Their killers were brought to justice. We bombed Libya so Europe could have cheap oil

nothing more

[louis c]

13. Ghadafi murdered Americans

He got justice. You can give me all the conspiracy theories you want, but the facts are the facts.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/16/international/middleeast/16NATI.html

[Press Virginia]

14. Turning Libya into a failed state is justice? For whom?

Libya posed no threat to the US either immediate or imminent. Removing Qadaffy did nothing to bolster us national security.

It was about oil for Europe, nothing more.

Removing Qadaffy over Lockerbie is no different than arguing Saddam deserved to be removed for the attempt to kill Bush 41

[louis c]

15. the rebels acted organically

we stopped Gadhafi's genocide in Bengasi. As a final measure, we blocked his escape from Libya, and he got justice.

He was a terrorist that killed Americans. You don't mind if I don't shed a tear for him, do you?

[Press Virginia]

16. And, now, Libya is a failed state...how does that improve US Security?

your argument is no different than the ones made to take out saddam

[Vattel]

3. Okay, that defense is not the slightest bit convincing.

You don't wreak havoc a nation so that one bad person gets their just deserts. The difference from killing Bin Laden is huge. In the Bin Laden case, Obama wisely and ethically decided not to take Bin Laden out by bombing because innocent bystanders would be killed.

If you want to try to defend violent regime change in Libya, you would do better appealing to the fact that Gadhafi had threatened to commit a massacre and to the right of Libyans to self-determination. Those sorts of justifications can at least in principle justify war.

Sadly, using war to achieve regime change in Libya was a mistake. I wish Clinton would admit her mistake and indicate to voters that she has learned something.

[bigwillq]

7. Good post.

[AngryAmish]

4. You and Ron Reagan have the same policy.

Let that baby sink in.

But of course Hillary is by far the best candidate.

[rug]

5. Your argument on retaliation 25 years later is weaker tha Bush's argument to invade Afghanistan.

[louis c]

11. What's the statute of limintation on terrorist murder?

[deaniac21]

17. I think it's the same as the

statute of limitations.

[louis c]

18. There is no statute of liminatations on murder

that's the point.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. The Lockerbie bomber was released in 2011. If your theory is true then-Secretary Clinton

could have voiced her concerns.

[independentpiney]

9. Are you sure she was the driving force?

I recall her being the major advocate for use of force within the Obama administration, but wasn't the original intervention led by France and Britain under a UN resolution?
Also, Gadahfi had mellowed in 25 years and cooperated with giving up wmd's and I believe may have even formally renounced the use of terrorism. No doubt he was still batshit insane and brutally repressed all opposition, but defending the judgement to support Islamists overthrowing a secular dictator as revenge for events from the 1980's is really weak in my opinion.
The many other events that have happened in the interceding years should have indicated it was a bad idea. I think it was poor judgement on the part of all of the involved parties internationally including the then SOS. But Hillary Clinton didn't lead the charge, and I assume did what she was obliged to do as SoS in support of NATO partners and the UN.