A Case of Willful Blindness
The Libya attack/embassy security story grows more scandalous by the day. Read more.
Comment: Critics are right to drill deeply and to demand answers to disturbing questions, given the sickening spin by an administration apparently determined to never let facts get in the way of a good, liberal narrative.
But the really big question is still ignored--namely, was the intervention in Libya necessary in the first place?
The answer, of course, is that the intervention was not necessary--and it has done more harm than good. The Libyan dictator was a terrible lunatic; but he had been contained and … turned … into an … asset … in the fight against Al Qaeda, specifically, and Islamist terrorism in general … and his heir apparent, a Western educated son prone to partying with the rich and famous, certainly posed no threat to U.S. national security. On the contrary, he, too, was an asset. Intervening in Libya on so-called humanitarian grounds destroyed a country and created yet another link in a chain of Islamist regimes that stretches from Tehran to Tunis (Morocco should be very afraid) and threatens to enslave the Middle East and Central Asia and drive the United States from what are arguably the world's most strategically vital regions.