Leonard Pitts and Libya

Authored by Michael Pate on December 19th, 2003 at 9:19 PM

During the Clinton Administration, there was at least one person championing the War on Terror.

I watched the memorial service for those who died on the USS Cole, and my heart went out to the families left behind, the hopes and dreams forever dashed, the faith tested, the yearning for the lost loved ones. It’s the price of war. We are at war, by the way. That’s the thing that everybody seems to miss. This was not a terrorist attack. Those who planned the attack might also have planned terrorist attacks like the bombing of the U.S. embassies in East Africa, but this attack, at least, followed the rules of war. They attacked a military target. They attacked soldiers in uniform. They achieved surprise, at the cost of their own soldiers dying in performing the mission. But if this had been an operation by, say, Navy SEALs against an enemy power, we would regard it as a successful and legitimate military operation meant to unsettle and demoralize the enemy. - Leonard Pitts, October 25, 2000

Now this same person does not see Iraq as a part of the equation.

You feel like an ant at a picnic for pointing this out. Indeed, the only thing that might feel more awkward than standing aside from the celebratory conga line would be to join it. Because joining it requires one to conveniently forget that the reason we went to war was not to find Hussein, but to find weapons of mass destruction, which, we were told, represented a clear and present danger to our security. Those weapons are yet to be found, and the suspicion is strong that they simply do not exist, that calamitous failures of intelligence led the nation to spend time, treasure and lives on a war that did not need to be fought. Whenever you make that point, people invariably respond that the world is a better place without Hussein in power. This is true. It’s also true that the world would be a better place without Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro and Moammar Gadhafi in power. So unless one is arguing for war with North Korea, Cuba and Libya, the caveat about Iraq is beside the point. Moreover, it’s an after-the-fact obfuscation that fuels suspicion the president was disingenuous or misinformed when he made the case for war. - Leonard Pitts

I don’t suppose that the events in Iraq could have any influence on a country like Libya?

President Bush announced today that Libya, which for decades has been estranged from the United States, had agreed to forsake weapons of mass destruction and to allow weapons inspectors from international organizations into the country. Mr. Bush, in a stunning late-afternoon appearance, said Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi had notified diplomats from both the United States and Britain of its decision. Libya has been talking with the United States and Britain quietly for some nine months, the president said. - David Stout

I wonder who is disingenuous or misinformed now?

Links in this entry:

Bush Says Libya Will Allow Arms Inspections
Hussein's fate doesn't justify the war in Iraq
The Blood on Bill Clinton's Hands

Comments

I don't know where you got the idea that Leonard Pitts authored the paragraph on the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, but I am he and I assure that not only didn't I write the passage you cite, but I've NEVER written about the attack. Please correct your error.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.patetech.info/cgi-bin/mt/mt-doubleback.cgi/251