Here's an endorsement that House opponents of President Obama probably won't rush to put on their yard signs and door-hangy cards next year: "Backed by Col. Qaddafi!" But it would be true -- the New York Times reported on Saturday that Libyan strongman Moammar Qaddafi sent a letter thanking House members who supported the measure we told you about earlier requiring that President Obama "explain" the U.S. role in Libya.
Wrote Qaddafi, per the NYT's Mark Landler:
"I want to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful discussion of the issues,” Colonel Qaddafi wrote in the letter, a copy of which was supplied to The New York Times by a person seeking to defend the administration’s policy. “We are confident that history will see the wisdom of your country in debating these issues.” ... "We are counting on the United States Congress to its continued investigation of military activities of NATO and its allies to confirm what we believe is a clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973,” Colonel Qaddafi said in the three-page letter, which was not addressed to any particular lawmaker.And here's where the story -- like everything else Qaddafi touches -- takes a turn for the absurd:
A spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, who introduced last week’s resolution, said his office had received the letter but was not able to vouch for its authenticity. The letter was received by the administration through the same channels that Colonel Qaddafi has sent other letters, another official said.Did you copy that? Within the same response, Boehner's office says he both supports Qaddafi's ouster -- which is one of the president's goals, but not a military one -- and yet also accepts Qaddafi's supposedly "incoherent" argument supporting the House's demand for an "explanation" on the Libyan intervention.
“If authentic, this incoherent letter only reinforces that Qaddafi must go. There’s no disagreement about that,” said the spokesman for Mr. Boehner, Brendan Buck. “That’s why so many Americans have questions — which the White House refuses to answer — about the administration committing U.S. resources to an operation that doesn’t make his removal a goal.”
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend," as the old saying goes.