The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Rumsfeld wants recognition for Iraq’s role in Libya

Former defence secretary claims Saddam’s removal is the reason Gaddafi has not used WMDs in Libya.

By Duncan Robinson Published 22 March 2011 16:22

The advocates of intervention in Libya have all strenuously avoided any comparison with Iraq. David Cameron and Hillary Clinton have pointed repeatedly towards the costs of inaction in Bosnia in the mid-1990s instead. This has not gone down well with Donald Rumsfeld, who wants the 2003 Iraqi invasion to get some credit.

The former US secretary of defence tweeted:

There's a reason Gaddafi isn't contemplating using a nuclear/radiological weapon today: he saw what happened to Saddam.

I wonder if Cameron and co will say "thank you".

Tags: Donald Rumsfeld libya intervention Libya twitter

More from Duncan Robinson

View the discussion thread.

10 comments

Tue, 2011-03-22 16:31 — ACMJ

Who is Rumsveld trying to kid ? Does he still belive that people will accept any rubbish he tries to sell us ?

Tue, 2011-03-22 16:38 — Arturo Bandini (not verified)

A bit off-topic but, regardless of our collective liberal bias, can Rumsfeld really be as evil as his face suggests?

What an unfortunately unsettling, black-eyed visage for one so committed to serving the common good.

Tue, 2011-03-22 17:12 — Kippers

There is a very interesting difference between the US and the UK in the coverage of the issue of WMD and Libya. In the UK, where Blair made the claim that Libya has disarmed in 2003, WMD are rarely mentioned in the context of Libya. In the USA the coverage often says that Libya has mustard gas or other WMD.

Tue, 2011-03-22 18:13 — Nilsey105

ffs this man has so many failings it unbelievable.
He has failed to learn any of the lessons from the intervention in Iraq.
He has failed to learn the lessons of attempting to convince and lie to the populace of the world.
He fails to understand and learn that he and his ilk are no longer credible leaders of the world.

I am sure you can all add many many more illustrations of why he is no longer listened to, the warmonger.

Wed, 2011-03-23 00:14 — SL (not verified)

What a stupid thing to say! Everyone knows that actually having WMDs *protects* you from getting invaded.

Tue, 2011-03-22 22:25 — mrandyc (not verified)

Gadafi could have looked at North Korea and seen that owning WMDs is insurance against being attacked.

Wed, 2011-03-23 01:01 — antonello paciolla (not verified)

ok rumsfeld, but saddam hussein actually didn't have any WMD

Wed, 2011-03-23 03:54 — fern (not verified)

Donald you are the best. I feel so much safer now that all the WMDs have been destroyed and the Iraqi people enjoy a fantastic peaceful democracy. All in your mind of course.
You are no different to Pol Pot or Hitler. Different lies, same outcome. Death and misery. Well, at least not for the US corporations.