Monday, August 22, 2011

Muammar al-Qaddafi - Our Dictator Du Jour (we were for him before we were against him)

Ron Paul has a reputation amongst The Statists as being totally naive on foreign policy. 
This means he is always right. 
Not just kinda right, but gloriously validated and vindicated.   You don't earn a bad reputation in Big Government circles by being wrong. 
Here's a little dustup that Paul had with our Secretary Of State, also known as She Whose Name Is Not Spoken:

“A lot of people in this country have come to the conclusion that our policy overhaul has been inconsistent; that sometimes we support the bad guys and the bad guys become our enemies,” Paul told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Rep. Paul pointed to America’s support for Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, its collaboration with Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 1980s, and its propping up the Shah in Iran for decades before that.

“But we keep supporting Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, all these dictators, and yet we pretend that as soon as, well, it looks like the dictator might fall, we're all for democracy and we're for freedom and we're against these dictators,” he said.

To which The Hildabeast responded:

“Congressman, you make a very passionate argument, and my response is that, you know, the United States, over the course of its entire diplomatic history, has had to make some very difficult decisions,” she said.

“We try to balance what we believe to be in our interests. Sometimes, and I would argue most times, we get it right. Sometimes we don't,” America’s top diplomat conceded.

You can go here for a partial list of dictators that we've supported, and that most sane and sober people would examine and say "Dang, Hillary.  You sure got that one wrong.  What possessed you folks to give that dictator a bunch of money?"  

So here's today's update:  Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi is now on the run.  Rebels have almost taken Tripoli, and our State Department will soon be able to claim that our military involvement in Libya was justified.  But what about this, from 2009 ??

The State Department has designated $400,000 in international aid funds for two foundations run by the children of Libyan dictator Muammar Kaddafi, a move that two Republican members of Congress today called a misuse of taxpayer funds that should be immediately cut off by President Obama.

The Congress members’ complaints on Thursday came just a day after Kaddafi delivered a bizarre speech to the United Nations in which he suggested the Israelis may have been behind the Kennedy assassination and the swine-flu virus was cooked up in a corporate lab. It also comes amid mounting international criticism of Kaddafi’s regime after it provided a hero’s welcome to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 that killed 270 people.

Ironically, one of the groups designated for $200,000 in State Department funds is the Kaddafi Development Foundation, headed by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader’s son who personally arranged for Megrahi’s flight back to Tripoli last month after the convicted terrorist was released on “humanitarian” grounds from a Scottish jail. Another $200,000—part of $2.5 million in State Department economic-support funds for Libya—is slated to go to an organization headed by Kaddafi’s daughter Aisha, to promote “women’s economic opportunities.”

“This waste of taxpayer dollars is particularly outrageous following the hero’s welcome given to the Lockerbie bomber,” said Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Relations Committee. Ros-Lehtinen wrote Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her to cut off the entire $2.5 million designation for Libya, noting that it was provided by Congress in order to “promote democracy and human rights” in Libya. “How could this assistance effectively promote democracy when entrusted to the dictator’s family?” she asked.

Yeah.  Good question.  I think that funding got blocked, but I don't have time this morning to research it properly.  But how about this later attempt to give Qaddafi some money?  Not just some money but an increase in his allowance?  This was going on in March of this year !!!!

While President Obama calls Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi a threat to his own people, just one month before attacking Libya the president asked Congress to increase U.S. aid for Qaddafi's military to $1.7 million.

According to State Department figures, the money was earmarked to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, secure its borders and to counter terrorism.

If this seems contradictory, welcome to the world of U.S. foreign aid, where billions of tax dollars go to people we don't like and nations some say don't need the help. The latest unrest has drawn renewed scrutiny to these policies. 

Hell, by the way they keep trying to throw money at him, you would think that Qaddafi worked for SEIU or ACORN or maybe the Wisconsin Teachers' Union.  If time permitted, I'd check to see if he got any stimulus funds. 

If you have time and don't mind getting depressed, you can go here and see that, through various aid organizations, we've given Libya $176 million since Qaddafi took over as dictator. 

Good job, Hillary. 


I think my next Dictator Du Jour will be Spain's Francisco Franco or Cambodia's Pol Pot.  We supported both of them until we were against them.  Or I can take nominations for other dicatators from you folks.  The floor is open, and there are plenty of candidates. 

The pic of our man in Libya came from here.  The Aid Trap picture came from here, and that entire article should be tattooed on Hillary's thighs. 


Unknown said...

Debating the morality of US foreign policy is one thing, but presenting a laundry list of dictators we supposedly "supported" without a deep analysis of why is nonsense.

Why don't we list the various dictators of the Soviet Union? Although we were engaged in a long Cold War with them, we frequently engaged in trade and other peaceful negotiations with them. We stood idly by while they murdered and oppressed millions, or made lofty proclamations about their misdeeds and boycotted sporting events as if that was some form of retribution.

We could add present-day China to the list. Why do we enrich them by engaging in trade?

I for one won't apologize for us supporting bastards like Rhee, Pinochet, and the corrupt leaders of South Vietnam. The communists had already rigged the game for so-called "democratic" elections. Misery and war was a fait accompli. What hung in the balance was a century of communist dictatorship and world domination. Look only to South and North Korea today for the object lesson on why these interventions were in the best interests of freedom.

Rhee is long gone, Kim is not. Duvalier is gone, Castro is not. Marcos is gone, the communists in Hanoi are not. Pinochet is gone, Chavez is not. Japan and Germany are democracies. Nearly all of our propped up dictators and puppets eventually gave way to REAL democracies through elections. Communist and Islamofascist dictatorships almost never changed hands without war.

We did not ever "support" Osama bin Laden. Not one dime of US aid went to his group. We supported some mujahadeen groups, not all of them.

We did not "support" Saddam Hussein. We sold him some agricultural equipment, utility helicopters, and other benign items. Our greatest contribution was in providing intelligence information against Iran who we rightly believed was the bigger threat. France provided 30 times the monetary value we gave to Saddam, and Russia provided 100 times the support. Our interest was in preventing a radical Shiite superstate from taking over the Middle East, and we maintained that balance well. No apologies there either.

We now know (or maybe the CIA knew) that the Soviets had paid Allende large sums of money and supported his campaign in Chile. Allende won with 36% of the popular vote, but he immediately and illegally nationalized thousands of banks, farms, and other firms. He was a Soviet lapdog who needed to be put down. Killing a communist puppet isn't a crime. It's a public service.

Perhaps there was far too much military adventurism, but our presidents had far greater access to inelligence than we did.

No nation is an island. Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons can reach our shores, muslim terrorists can kill our people here. We must adopt worldwide defenses and diplomacy. The isolationists of yore were always wrong. They were wrong in WWI, WWII, Korea, and they were wrong about Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What happens there most certainly affects us here.

But I'm glad we live in a country where we can argue our points of view. The bottom line is that while we may choose not to take sides in a foreign conflict, our enemies have no hesitation. You and I and Hillary and Ron Paul can and will debate the wisdom of wars and intervention. No such discussions take place in Moscow, Pyong Yang, Beijing, Caracas, or Tehran.

God grant us peace!

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Howdy, and thanks for the insightful comment.
I'm not talking about trade with a very bad guy.
I'm talking about giving him free stuff that was taken (partly) from me, by force.
I don't like that.