Here's what Bachmann had to say about Lybia(via Lawrence Auster):
WALLACE: Congresswoman, from the very start, you are a strong opponent of any U.S. military involvement in Libya. Here's what you told me in May.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BACHMANN: This is a disaster in the make why President Obama's policy of leading from behind is an outrage and people should be outraged at the foolishness of the president's decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Question--if President Bachmann had been in charge, wouldn't Muammar Qaddafi still be in power?
BACHMANN: Well, he may be. But I stand by that decision. I think it was wrong for the United States to go [into] Libya.
BACHMANN: Look where we're at today. Remember, again, Barack Obama said we were going into Libya for humanitarian purposes. It wasn't humanitarian purposes. It was regime change.
And what's the result? We don't know who the next leaders will be. Sure, there is a transitional council, but who will the real leader should be that takes over and runs Libya? It could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don't know yet who that regime will be.
But worse, we've seen the MANPADS go missing, and the shoulder-fired rockets that are very dangerous, that can fit in the trunk of the car. And there are some reports out there that they have perhaps even gone as far as Gaza. And, of course, that could be used to bring down a commercial airliner. This is a very bad decision and it's created more instability in that region, not less.
WALLACE: I'm a little bit confused though. Are you suggesting that we would be better off with Qaddafi's dictatorship still in effect?
BACHMANN: The world certainly is better off without Qaddafi. I agree with Lindsey Graham. The world is better off without Qaddafi.
But consider what the cost will be. We are only looking at a snap shot today. We're not--the last chapter hasn't been written in on Libya.
And, again, we have to recognize that there are missing today chemical weapons, the shoulder-fired missile launchers, this is very serious. This could risk more human life because they're missing, and we also don't know who the next regime will be that will be taking over Libya. We knew who the devil was that was running, we don't know the next one.
And, again, this was leading from behind on the part of the administration.
And, remember, there was no clearly identifiable American vital interest that was ever designated. That needs to be our basis for putting any American in harm's way.
Bachmann unfotunately caved in under pressure from Wallace when he asked whether the world is a safer place without Ghadafi and also blatantly contradicted herself in that passage as well as failed to outright condemn the lynching of Ghaddafi by Lybia's NTC savages but this in no way undercuts the title of this post of mine. As the saying goes, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is the king. Bachmann deserves kudos for sticking to her guns and refusing to jump on this particularly loathsome bandwagon. Just by doing that and saying the things above she set herself up for a media equivalent of what was done to Ghaddafi, there is no need to fuel the rage of NTC's fellow barbarians in America any further.
Still, Michele Bachmann is a very small silver lining in a dark, sinister cloud. The whole affair over the murder of Ghaddafi is extremely disheartening in several ways, so much so it requires a separate post. I hope I'll make something out of it in the next few days.
PS The title of the post is an out-take on Lawrence Auster again, namely his blog entry of August 27th of that year, titled "John McCain -- the worst man in America". Be sure to read it and try not to weep.