An embassy in Tripoli

Decide for yourself whether there is any useful analogy to another government that ours considers a pariah – and yes, I know we’re in a different hemisphere with different political standards – but I’ll note that President Bush named an Ambassador to Libya last week.

The restoration of diplomatic relations flows from “the historic decisions taken by Libya's leadership in 2003 to renounce terrorism and to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs,” according to the Secretary of State, who also announced an intention to end Libya’s designation as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Restored ties, she went on, “will allow us to better discuss…protection of universal human rights, promotion of freedom of speech and expression, and expansion of economic and political reform consistent with President Bush's freedom agenda.”

Not all are pleased. At National Review Online’s blog last week, Michael Rubin noted:

“…Qadhafi’s endorsement of insurgency in Iraq, his continued financing of terrorism in Asia and elsewhere, and his imprisonment of the only Libyan dissident whom Bush has ever cited in a speech, and the Libyan Supreme Court decision to uphold the execution of Bulgarian hostages (in a threat which is part of the apparent shake-down of the EU)…”