You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Africa: North
Qaddafi Did Not Give Up His Nuclear Arsenal Because of Iraq
2004-02-15
By Patrice Claude, Le Monde
Libya is not “for nothing” in the revelation of the great international atomic “black market” directed from Islamabad by the “father” of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan. Even before Colonel Muammar Khadafi decided to open up his arsenal to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors in December 2003, “the Americans knew everything” Seïf Al-Islam Khadafi, son and presumed heir of the Libyan leader, asserts. “Our contribution to their knowledge of the subject was null. They had infiltrated the networks long ago,” he adds.
Is anybody but me having doubts that we don't know where the WMDs are? If we really, truly, don't know what's up with them, the CIA's Iraq section needs new management — brought in from the South Asia section or the WMD section.
It was in October 2003 that the fourth delivery to Libya of metal parts made in Malaysia and intended for the assembly of a modern centrifuge — indispensable to the production of Isotope 235, the essential component of an efficient nuclear bomb — was stopped in Italian waters by American security services. Some think that this boarding played a role in the spectacular aggiornamento taking place between Washington and Tripoli. Others- as President George Bush clearly allowed it to be understood January 20- prefer to believe that it’s the American invasion of Iraq that decided Colonel Khadafi to conclude his efforts with regard to weapons of mass destruction. “Nine months of intensive negotiations including the United States and Great Britain have succeeded- in Libya- where twelve years of diplomacy with Iraq failed,” the President asserted. “For diplomacy to work, words must be credible and no one may any longer doubt America’s word,” he added. In fact, the last negotiation session between Tripoli, London and Washington began in March 2003, several days before the American offensive in Iraq, and it was on December 19, a week after Saddam Hussein’s capture, that the Libyan “Guide” announced to the world that he was giving up all secret weapons programs.
Makes sense to me. We saw Muammar doing the turnaround here. He may have even wanted to before 9-11, but after that date he put them into high gear.
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#3  Very cool. You guys are sharp.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-2-15 11:39:44 PM  

#2  The truth seems to be that Libya gave us something that we did not previously have and did so because they respect and fear our 'cowboy' foreign policy. There is a reason they chose to go to the US/UK and not France.

That is correct. Saddam had satisfied the French. Gaddafi learned from the Iraqi invasion that satisfying the French was not enough - he needed to satisfy the US that he was harmless.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-2-15 11:20:52 PM  

#1  The Iraq invasion might not have been the direct cause of the Libyan change of heart, but the the will we demonstrated in burning through the Euro/UN resistance must have helped bring matters to a head.

Also, if I were Libya, I would be getting the word out that 'they had us dead to rights, there was nothing we did to help them' rather than letting various nutbags in the region think that they are actively helping the Americans.

The truth seems to be that Libya gave us something that we did not previously have and did so because they respect and fear our 'cowboy' foreign policy. There is a reason they chose to go to the US/UK and not France.
Posted by: JAB   2004-2-15 10:32:46 PM  

00:00