Brandjack News

by Quentin Langley

I am fed up with seeing professional diplomats making excuses for Blair's shoddy sucking up to Gaddafi by comparing it with the Bush administration's ending of sanctions. Let's look at some of the differences.

In exchange for ending sanctions against Libya the Bush administration secured the verifiable end of Libya's WMD programme. Libya's nuclear materials and chemical weapons were all handed over to the US. In the aftermath of regime change in Iraq, and Libya's desire to do business with the US, the world secured significant benefits. Most particularly, Libya's people secured benefits. Gaddafi has been absolutely clear: he will fight to the last drop of other people's blood. We all know what would be happening now if Gaddafi still had chemical weapons. Just imagine if he had even one nuclear weapon.

The contrast with the disgraceful Blair/Brown/Salmond deal could not be more sharp. Britain did not get anything from that deal. Libya did not give anything up for the right to do business with Britain. Britain ponied up the release of a terrorist for the right to be do business with Libya. Gaddafi got the release of the person convicted for the biggest mass murder on British soil.

What does this say about the reputation of Britain, Libya and the US? Libya will pay for the right to do business with the US, but Britain must pay for the right to business with Libya.

Blair and Brown sacrificed the dignity and honour of their country for opportunity to suck up to one of the most monstrous dictators in history.