National Review’s spectacular irrationality on Libya
On Wednesday National Review ran an editorial urging that the U.S. intervene with military force in Libya to overthrow Kaddafi. I replied here. Today Andrew McCarthy has written a full length response to the editorial, and I mean full length. The editorial was 770 words long; McCarthy’s response is 3,500 words long. Less is more, Andy.
Here is one pungent section, where McCarthy wonders why U.S. “payback” against Kaddafi for the Lockerbie bombing has suddenly become such a high priority for NR’s editors. During the Bush years, he writes,
… Qaddafi—a terrorist who never changed a wit—was suddenly portrayed as a reformer and a strong U.S. ally in the war against terror. The Bush administration removed him from the list of terror sponsors, opened the foreign aid spigot for him, and cultivated ties between his regime and U.S. industry—all to the deep dismay of the same opposition we are now told it is essential that we help. Even more infuriating, President Bush, at the apparent urging of Secretary Rice, agreed to satisfy Qaddafi’s damage claims arising out of the Reagan administration’s righteous missile-attack on Tripoli in retaliation for the despot’s terrorist bombing that killed American troops in Germany.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 17, 2011 11:36 AM | Send