First it's how Bush invented Keynesian economics with his tax cuts. Then it's the miraculous economic recovery, another terrible performance.

Then it's the invasion of Iraq saying that Saddam had all these terrible weapons, practically an imminent nuclear attack. So knowing Bush one should conclude there must be no weapons, and of course there weren't.

First the tax cuts were going to cut the surplus. Then when he stuffed up the surplus the same tax cuts were going to bring it back, though he never claimed that when there was a surplus.

Then there was North Korea. He goes around saying the leader there is a such a jerk and so of course he gets mad and starts building nuclear bombs. Now there's another pathetic situation to be fixed there. He nearly does the same thing with Iran but fortunately the adults at the UN may have fixed Bush's mess there.

All nonsense all the time. Now this silliness with Libya. Of course it can't be true, Bush incapable of doing anything without stuffing it up, even getting on a Segway. Libya's been under UN yes UN sanctions for 10 years, and now Bush claims he solved this problem single handed too.

That conversion, coupled with the end of the Lockerbie affair, warrants a change in U.S. policy. Although the United States' dealings with Libya have evolved over the past two decades, successive administrations have agreed on the basic goal of isolating and containing the Libyan regime. But although a policy of coercion can make sense when handling recalcitrant regimes, by itself it is an inappropriate response to a rogue state that is beginning to comply with international standards. As Libya's foreign policy develops, the United States should inject a measure of flexibility in its approach to Tripoli, by removing Libya from the terrorism list, lifting restrictions on travel there, and gradually lessening trade barriers between the two states. An American policy that wields sticks and offers no carrots is unlikely to help accelerate Libya's self-rehabilitation.

and

Second, Libya's 'WMD' are awfully primitive compared to be the big-boys of the rogue state universe. They have mustard gas, a World War I era weapon, and some very preliminary nuclear stuff, not even remotely close to having a serious facility let alone a bomb. So that context is important. Having said all this, some are pointing to this development as a sign of the merits of talking versus fighting in turning back the scourge of weapons proliferation. But that won't do either. Talking, in itself, means nothing. It's only a way of lubricating or finessing the application of different kinds of force or pressure. And the pressure applied to Libya has been fierce. Only it wasn't principally military, but economic.

and

Hawks in Washington will attempt to make the argument that Libya's sudden willingness to give up its weapons of mass destruction programs is a dividend of the Iraq war. For those who know anything at all about Libya, however, an entirely different interpretation is obvious. Libya proves that economic sanctions can work.