[Rqqneujr]

Since no one here or in the media can agree on how to spell nutjob, I gave it my own twist. Anyhow, I got to thinking that if 'ol Dubya was still in office maybe Moe-Mar wouldn't have gone so far off the reservation. Huckabee shed some light on the post Obama world, he quoted Roosevelt on speak softly and carry a big stick, and that Obama's approach has been to apologize and throw the stick away, making the world a more dangerous place.
So back to it, do you think Moe-Mar would have reacted differently if Bush was still in office? I do.

[Repwailia]

So back to it, do you think Moe-Mar would have reacted differently if Bush was still in office? I do.

Honestly, I don't. He's playing his final card. Desperate men will behave suicidally. Witness Saddam Hussein.

And I don't know that President Bush would have handled it differently given that U.S. armed forces are already heavily engaged elsewhere. Even enforcing a "no fly zone" would necessitate an attack on Libya's air defenses, and I don't think we need to add that to our problem list. Mr. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, agrees.

[SingleMan]

I'm not sure where this whole "Obama threw the stick away" thing is coming from. So far, Obama has been pretty much exactly in line with Bush with our military foreign policy, if not more aggressive in many respects. We're still following the same Iraq withdrawal time table, we're still in Afghanistan, we're now more aggressive with our use of drone strikes in Pakistan, Gitmo is still open, we've stepped up our actions against Somali pirates, the Patriot Act is still in effect, more of our budget goes to defense than it did under Bush, and we're sending battleships to the coast of Libya with the possibility of enforcing a no fly zone. If anything, Obama is the one speaking softly and carrying a big stick, while Bush was speaking loudly and carrying a big stick.

As for the main question, no, I don't think Gaddafi would be acting any different if Bush were in power. Bush was pretty lenient with Gaddafi (so far, much more lenient than Obama), remember. But, Gaddafi is a batshit insane dictator who's people are rising up against him, I'm pretty sure he'd be freaking out and trying to hold onto power by any means no matter who the US President was.

[Qdcqxffs]

Bush was pretty lenient with Gaddafi (so far, much more lenient than Obama), remember.

Where is this coming from? My memory is that Mr. Gadhafi was pretty well-behaved during the Bush years. Was Mr. Bush supposed to pick a fight with him out of the blue?

[bypeTeenehalT]

Where is this coming from? My memory is that Mr. Gadhafi was pretty well-behaved during the Bush years. Was Mr. Bush supposed to pick a fight with him out of the blue?

President Bush restored Libya's immunity to being sued for terrorism and declared that Libya was no longer obligated to compensate the families of Americans who had been killed by Libya through various terrorist acts.

Executive Order 13477 - Wikisource

Of course, this wasn't out of the blue. Libya was found responsible for multiple state sponsored terrorist acts that resulted in the deaths of Americans and told they must compensate the victim's families and the French airliner of the plane they blew up to a total of $6 Billion. Libya said "No way, but we'll give you $1.5 Billion" and then Bush rewarded them the above, basically saying "That's fine with us, don't worry about the other $4.5 Billion!" Oh, and you're totally not terrorists anymore". Seems kinda lenient to me.

EDIT: Granted, Obama hasn't really had an opportunity to show leniency with Gaddafi like Bush did. Obama may well have done the exact same thing as Bush.

[Cemeuncex]

Since no one here or in the media can agree on how to spell nutjob, I gave it my own twist. Anyhow, I got to thinking that if 'ol Dubya was still in office maybe Moe-Mar wouldn't have gone so far off the reservation. Huckabee shed some light on the post Obama world, he quoted Roosevelt on speak softly and carry a big stick, and that Obama's approach has been to apologize and throw the stick away, making the world a more dangerous place.
So back to it, do you think Moe-Mar would have reacted differently if Bush was still in office? I do.

To the contrary:

The attempt of our country through Pseudo Colonization of who ever might bend to our to our will has made ourselves and the world a more dangerous place to live,perhaps because our genes are inherited greatly from the most prolific Colonizers of all time. England, France and Spain.

Right now we need oil and others have or are vying for its control. Why not just announce our intentions to control the sources of this product by any means necessary and unite our people to a common goal ? We IMO don't really give a rats ass about democracy or dictatorship for the "other" masses. Let the truth be known.

[occafeVes]

President Bush restored Libya's immunity to being sued for terrorism and declared that Libya was no longer obligated to compensate the families of Americans who had been killed by Libya through various terrorist acts.

Executive Order 13477 - Wikisource

Of course, this wasn't out of the blue. Libya was found responsible for multiple state sponsored terrorist acts that resulted in the deaths of Americans and told they must compensate the victim's families and the French airliner of the plane they blew up to a total of $6 Billion. Libya said "No way, but we'll give you $1.5 Billion" and then Bush rewarded them the above, basically saying "That's fine with us, don't worry about the other $4.5 Billion!" Oh, and you're totally not terrorists anymore". Seems kinda lenient to me.

That's called a settlement. Happens all the time. You have to give something to get something. I wouldn't call it leniency.

EDIT: Granted, Obama hasn't really had an opportunity to show leniency with Gaddafi like Bush did. Obama may well have done the exact same thing as Bush. Yeah, I don't think it's fair to say that Bush was more lenient than Obama. Bush's tenure was a time of relative peace with Libya when Gadhafi was trying to bring Libya back into the international fold and willing to make reparations of some sort to do so. One cay say that normalization of relations was a positive achievement, and I don't recall Mr. Obama or any other leading Democrats stoking the fires with Libya at the time. Mr. Obama didn't roll back any normalization of relations with Libya until Mr. Gadhafi started getting hassled by his own people. It's just simply an unfair charge IMO.

[scoundtrack]

President Bush restored...

There was also the little matter of Gaddafi giving up his WMD programs and stockpiles post the 2003 Iraq invasion. He was 'rewarded' for that as well.

As to the question from the OP, hell yes I think that the Bush Administration would have moved quicker and more forcefully than team Obama has.

[Wavgbtif]

There was also the little matter of Gaddafi giving up his WMD programs and stockpiles post the 2003 Iraq invasion. He was 'rewarded' for that as well.

As to the question from the OP, hell yes I think that the Bush Administration would have moved quicker and more forcefully than team Obama has.

Well yes, Pres. Bush was more quick on the draw, which is not always a good thing, if like me, you disagree on invading Iraq. Some of us want to change cultures and even the world to match our own views. And that can be damned near impossible a task, and very expensive to us taxpayers. Just look at the vast money we have tossed into a bottomless pit. Yet some get really rich from wars, just not the guys doing the dying.

[Zpxbawtz]

There was also the little matter of Gaddafi giving up his WMD programs and stockpiles post the 2003 Iraq invasion. He was 'rewarded' for that as well.

As to the question from the OP, hell yes I think that the Bush Administration would have moved quicker and more forcefully than team Obama has.

Funny how we didn't reward Saddam Hussein for those same actions...

[BronUVT]

Funny how we didn't reward Saddam Hussein for those same actions...

He did get free dental care.

[Beerinkol]

That's called a settlement. Happens all the time. You have to give something to get something. I wouldn't call it leniency.

Yes, it was a settlement, but it was a very lenient settlement. Libya paid only a small portion of what the US said was owed, and got pretty big returns for it. I understand the reasoning behind it, I'm just trying to illustrate that the Bush admin hardly took a tough stance on Gaddafi. They were more than willing to negotiate and make concessions and show leniency. These are, of course, important tools to use in the world of diplomacy and normalizing international relationships, but they in no way point to the Bush administration being tougher on Libya than Obama, which seems to be the point of this thread.

Yeah, I don't think it's fair to say that Bush was more lenient than Obama. Bush's tenure was a time of relative peace with Libya when Gadhafi was trying to bring Libya back into the international fold and willing to make reparations of some sort to do so. One cay say that normalization of relations was a positive achievement, and I don't recall Mr. Obama or any other leading Democrats stoking the fires with Libya at the time. Mr. Obama didn't roll back any normalization of relations with Libya until Mr. Gadhafi started getting hassled by his own people. It's just simply an unfair charge IMO. I didn't intend it as a charge against Bush (leniency isn't inherently a bad thing), I meant to show that the Bush administration was hardly tough on Libya, in fact they were more friendly towards Libya than pretty much any other administration. This doesn't jive with the OP's suggestion that Libya would be more afraid of America's big stick under Bush than they are under Obama.

You and I agree on the topic of this discussion, it seems. I'm just trying to refute the larger idea behind the thread topic, which is "Obama = diplomatic pussy" and "Bush = hard hitting bad ass". They both used power along with diplomacy, depending on the situation. Obama doesn't hesitate to employ the power of the military, while Bush didn't shy away from using diplomacy to improve relations. The entire premise of the OP is based off the ridiculous political myth of Democrats being weak wimps and Republicans being tough bastards. In the real world, the two parties (or at the very least, their two most recent leaders) aren't all that dissimilar when it comes to foreign policy.

[Sanremogirl]

Since no one here or in the media can agree on how to spell nutjob, I gave it my own twist. Anyhow, I got to thinking that if 'ol Dubya was still in office maybe Moe-Mar wouldn't have gone so far off the reservation. Huckabee shed some light on the post Obama world, he quoted Roosevelt on speak softly and carry a big stick, and that Obama's approach has been to apologize and throw the stick away, making the world a more dangerous place.
So back to it, do you think Moe-Mar would have reacted differently if Bush was still in office? I do.

I dunno', man. Ghaddafi brought a fuckin' tent to New York City. New York's got some pretty sweet hotels, and I'd be willing to bet that Ghaddafi's got the jack to pay New York City prices.

He left the reservation a loooong time ago...

[kubekniekubek]

There was also the little matter of Gaddafi giving up his WMD programs and stockpiles post the 2003 Iraq invasion. He was 'rewarded' for that as well.

Yes, that was a separate event, with separate rewards (lifting of most economic sanctions and resumption of diplomatic ties).

[VanDerSmok]

Yes, it was a settlement, but it was a very lenient settlement. Libya paid only a small portion of what the US said was owed, and got pretty big returns for it.

They paid 25% (of a total figure they had no hand in determining), which is infinitely more than the claimants would have otherwise received -- zero. So, they coughed up $1.5 billion. Big returns all around. Hell, Italy only coughed up $5 billion for 30 years of occupation. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/inte...nial-rule.html

Were you critical of the deal at the time?

You and I agree on the topic of this discussion, it seems. I'm just trying to refute the larger idea behind the thread topic, which is "Obama = diplomatic pussy" and "Bush = hard hitting bad ass". They both used power along with diplomacy, depending on the situation. Obama doesn't hesitate to employ the power of the military, while Bush didn't shy away from using diplomacy to improve relations. The entire premise of the OP is based off the ridiculous political myth of Democrats being weak wimps and Republicans being tough bastards. In the real world, the two parties aren't all that dissimilar when it comes to foreign policy. Yes, we do agree on the original question, but you seem to be pushing back against it into the territory of Republicans being pussies and Democrats being the badasses. I'm content to say it would have made no difference and likely would have been handled roughly the same by both.

[cokLoolioli]

They paid 25% (of a total figure they had no hand in determining), which is infinitely more than the claimants would have otherwise received -- zero. So, they coughed up $1.5 billion. Big returns all around. Hell, Italy only coughed up $5 billion for 30 years of occupation. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/inte...nial-rule.html

Were you critical of the deal at the time?

No, and I'm not critical of it now. I'm just showing that Bush was lenient with Libya. Being non-lenient would be the Bush administration saying "Screw your $1.5 billion, you owe us $6 Billion. Pay up now."

Yes, we do agree on the original question, but you seem to be pushing back against it into the territory of Republicans being pussies and Democrats being the badasses. I'm content to say it would have made no difference and likely would have been handled roughly the same by both. I did say in my first post, "If anything, Obama is the one speaking softly and carrying a big stick, while Bush was speaking loudly and carrying a big stick", which in the end, points to them both carrying a big stick. I also said, "They both used power along with diplomacy, depending on the situation" along with "In the real world, the two parties aren't all that dissimilar when it comes to foreign policy". Not sure how that's framing Republicans as pussies and Democrats as badasses. And yes, we agree, it makes no difference who the President is, the situation would have likely been handled similarly by both.

I'm not trying to say that either President is a pussy or a badass, I'm arguing against that by offering examples that run counter to those charges.

[HenriRow]

Yes, that was a separate event, with separate rewards (lifting of most economic sanctions and resumption of diplomatic ties).

In your opinion, did Bush dangle the reward prior to nutjob giving up his WMD, or did nutjob see the invasion of Iraq and make the first move? (I don't know if the truth could ever be found on that one.)

[Czrzftmz]

George W. Bush deserves credit for disarming Libya of all that nuke material at the time of the Iraq War, but then even Bush's point-man on Libya says that the administration took it's eye off Libya as the troubles in Iraq began mounting. In 2006, Bush's guy over there quit his job because he really didn't have anything to do because there was no policy regarding Libya when it came to advancing democracy.

The Bush deal in effect allowed Gaddafi a tighter rein over his people because sanctions on him had been lifted or eased, and he was made to be legitimized by the Bush administration as a figure who was "with us" and "not against us" now because that's the black and white mentality of the Bush years showing.

In contrast, the Obama administration had been talking with the Gaddafi father and son about making moves to advance democracy, moves to acquire more material from them like enriched uranium, and over the past couple years, the Gaddafi's whined about how the Bush administration said it was going to reward him with economic aid increases and that they'd have to see some of that before they do anything for Obama. Finally the Obama administration got annoyed with them in recent months and wasn't returning their calls, meanwhile things on the street in Libya were cooking up because like in Egypt, Tunisia and everywhere else, these people see that there is an opportunity for them take their country back because the old man is crazy and nearing his end and they really don't want his son.

This is about as intense and theatrical a series of days happening right now in Libya when it comes to pure political theatre. Different rebel groups are having to stop and communicate and co-ordinate this whole thing. They represent different factions but they're in the process of negotiating how to carry forward with the ultimate goal of removing Gaddafi and recognizing some kind of provisional authority, most likely the one set up by the former members of gov't who all resigned from Gaddafi on the same day last week so that the provisional authority can meet the demands of the opposition groups, which is to advance democracy for their people.

Obama's reaction has been fairly clear: he has totally dismissed the Gadaffis and has long since stopped talking with them, which is making particularly the son shit in his pants because he's getting his news from Obama, his surrogates, the UN and the EU in particular from having to watch tv. Obama levied the greatest one-day sanction of another country in US history and in the hours after he made that announcement, it was no coincidence that the EU and the rest of the world did the same thing.

Obama is essentially working every angle in order to facilitate the revolution without actually causing the deaths of anyone through his own actions. The US has said they have aid for the opposition on standby, but I think it's a move meant to put pressure on Gadaffi's son to help smoother-over this thing because he knows his dad is toast. They're going to good-cop/bad-cop this guy and he's going to accept what we put forward for him. Obama has no allegiance to these two clowns and is in the process of trying to work this out by giving incentives for Gadaffi's military people to abandon him as so many have already done.

Richard Engel's reporting from the street in Libya has been strong, and talking with one pocket of people he was asking them about if they thought they could pull it off or not and they responded, "We want to do it faster than Egypt!" as if they were playing it out like it's a friendly competition.

Some rebel groups want the US to impose the no-fly-zone, which would mean bombing their country in order to take away satellite communications, while the others are adamantly against that since to impose the no-fly-zone it would 1) play into the hands of Gadaffi and he uses it to rally his supporters that the west is coming to take over, 2) communications between the US and Libya and between Libya and it's own military would take a huge hit and opposition leaders are saying they want to preserve as much of their country as possible so a peaceful aftermath of the overthrowing of Gadaffi can flow smoothly.

Robert Gates is against a no-fly-zone so I don't see it happening, and for the reasons above it just doesn't make sense to have to attack these people if their revolution is expressing deep reservations about US interference and the perception-changes that would occur due to it.

[dianakroshXX]

No, and I'm not critical of it now. I'm just showing that Bush was lenient with Libya. Being non-lenient would be the Bush administration saying "Screw your $1.5 billion, you owe us $6 Billion. Pay up now."

Which would have been met with the proverbial middle finger extended in prior years. I fail to see the extraction of $1.5B as "lenient"; but that's politics for you. :: shrug ::

Let's also not forget that the claim settlement deal was approved in the U.S. Senate (of which Mr. Obama was a part) by unanimous consent. S. 3370 [110th]: Libyan Claims Resolution Act (GovTrack.us)

To the extent this was "leniency" it was across the political spectrum.

I'm not trying to say that either President is a pussy or a badass, I'm arguing against that by offering examples that run counter to those charges. Well, you did say that President Bush was "much more lenient" than President Obama. I don't think it's a fair comparison at all for the reasons above-stated; nor was it necessary to refute the pussy/badass dichotomy you mention.

[HitAttetlyTek]

So you are a dictator, and your country is in full rebellion, half of it is in the hands of the rebels, your diplomats and senior military officials are defecting to the rebel cause. If your palace gets overrun, you'll hang in the main square while the crows eat your eyeballs.

Do you really give one sweet shit what the US president says about you, no matter who that president may happen to be?

I mean this is a guy who blew up a 747 while Reagan was president, so by your theory, the Colonel believes Reagan was the biggest pussy of the lot.
And he did turn over the remnants of his abandoned atomic program, which had ended years earlier due to cost considerations. He got back into the company of nations, by trading his junk to Bush, and Bush had to pretend that it was a big deal, a pretty sweet deal for the Colonel.