Constructing Muammar Al-Gaddaf

Introduction:

The European Self needs violence and needs to confront its Other to feel and maintain its power, to

remake itself continually. The generalized state of war that continuously subtends colonial

representations is not accidental or even unwanted- violence is the necessary foundation of

colonialism itself .. the Master can only achieve a hollow form of recognition; it is the Slave, through

life-anddeath struggle, who has the potential to move forward through full . i consciousness. Michael

Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire Present-day rhetoric of the United States government utilizes the

age-old binary of good versus evil that creates divisions between the West and the Middle East and

justifies violence against all civilians, soldiers and government officials from the opposing side by

rhetorically constructing an enemy that is non-human, evil, and dangerous. This rhetorical tool of the

binary becomes increasingly problematic when used to suppress rebellion and perpetuate dominant

power structures, for it encourages further rebellion and conflict. What we are experiencing in U.S.

political rhetoric today is that as the dominant power structure, the government fights to control

resistance (appearing in the form of terrorism) against Western systems of oppression. The use of the

binary of good versus evil in U.S. political rhetoric, sometimes referred to as the Manichean

dichotomy,ii is a rhetorical strategy used by the state as it attempts to reinforce dominant power

structures. "The imperial machine ... produces and reproduces [master narratives] (ideological master

narratives in particular) in order to validate and celebrate its own power."iii Those in the U.S.

Government understand that language legitimizes and furthers power structures, but the use of

binaries, specifically those which attempt to "erase and neutralize ... differences and individualities"iv

with the creation of the enemy, will only be met with rebellion in this post-modem world that

demands acceptance of difference. Increased subordination inherently leads to an increase in uprising,

but this is not a negative process, for "disobedience to authority is one of the most natural and healthy

acts. To us it seems completely obvious that those who are exploited will resist andgiven the

necessary conditions-- rebel."v Given this light, terrorism is a healthy act of rebellion against a

prevailing system of oppression, for America colonized the space of the Middle East through

globalization and capitalistic expansion, and so-called terrorists such as the Libyan leader, Muammar

al-Gaddafi,vi rebel against that oppression. For example, Osama bin Laden speaks of freeing his

people from Western oppression: "We fight because we are free men who don't sleep under

oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you (America) lay waste to our nation.

So shall we lay waste to yours."vii Sometimes, like in the case of September 11, the rebellion is

successful, while other times, such as the case of Gaddafi, the oppressor forces concession. Thus, the

War on Terror is a struggle by the U.S. to contain revolutions · · l b l viii agamst its go a power.

Rhetoricians such as Robert Ivie and George Lakoffhave examined the use of language of opposition

to create and control various enemies during the War on Terror, but they have also ignored or

overlooked numerous cases. This paper will examine one such case, that ofMuammar al-Gaddafi,

whose reciprocal violence eventually succumbed to the oppressor's global economic power. This case

study will explore how the U.S. government rhetorically constructed Gaddafi in order to control both

his identity within American society (as either an enemy or an ally), as well as the counter-violence

that Gaddafi supposedly enacted against Western systems of power. This essay aims to bring to light

the circumstances of Gaddafi' s situation that lies between the two poles of the imposed binary and to

ultimately question the faulty rhetorical system with which the U.S. government justifies its violent

foreign policies. To achieve this, I will examine the rhetorical construction of Gaddafi by looking at

first language of opposition found in archived newspaper articles and political rhetoric from the

1980six to show how Gaddafi was portrayed as an enemy, followed by rhetoric from the past five

years to show how Gaddafi has been framed as a reformed sinner and an ally. I will then explore the

political reasons behind this change in rhetoric, exploring why the U.S. government chose to change

the construction by which Gaddafi was defined. I will argue that the U.S. government, having trouble

maintaining justifications for the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, aimed to validate these conflicts

by placing Gaddafi within a binary. The last section of this essay will aim to expose the middle

ground within the binary from both time periods to show that Qaddafi was not completely evil in the

1980s and that he is not a reformed ally today. The essay hopes to provide another example from the

War on Terror of how the U.S. government utilized language to legitimize violence in the hopes of

controlling rebellion against the Western systems of oppression and power, and to highlight the

dangers of these rhetorical constructs. Today the U.S. government relies on language of opposition to

justify violent foreign policy. Because of this, we find ourselves faced with revolt against the system

of oppression that we have produced, because language of opposition promotes cultural hegemony

and furthers oppressive power structures. In our postmodern world, oppressive power resides in

discourse, for "discourses have become one of the primary means of imperialism. Whereas in the past,

imperialism was about controlling the native by colonizing her/him territorially, now imperialism is

more about subjugating the 'native' by colonizing him discursively."x U.S. "representations of subjects

of developing countries and racially oppressed groups are as an 'other'-racially inferior groups are

hence open to subjugation by (white) Western discursive practices."xi While violent rebellion is the

common reaction to such oppression, the more peaceful method is to reject the binaries presented to

us by political rhetoricians, and search for the full meaning of an international conflict found within

the middle ground removed by the binary. To achieve this, we must pay attention to what is

commonly known as the "excluded middle"xii and "resist the notion of rhetoric as a unified, coherent,

and uni vocal collection of texts stretching over time ... [we] must instead locate the variety of

rhetorics that exist at any particular moment and examine their interaction with each other and the

conditions of their production.xiii This essay will aim to reveal the 'variety ofrhetorics' present in the

case of Gaddafi using a critical rhetorical approach in my research. I argue that Gaddafi did not

undergo a 'change of character' as the political discourse claims, but that after years of diplomacy and

secret meetings, Gaddafi made a decision that was beneficial to both his country and to U.S. interests.

In doing this, I argue that the Western world must rethink its use of binaries and language of

opposition, for binaries promote the dehumanization and eradication of other cultures in an attempt to

advance and protect current systems of power and domination and stifle revolutionary violence. While

it is impossible to eliminate the use of these binaries, it is crucial that, upon receiving these rhetorical

constructions from politicians via the news media, Western audiences are aware of and critical in their

analyses of such language. It is equally imperative that Western audiences become acutely aware of

the dangers of language of opposition that leads to subjugation of the enemy Other. "The crisis of

modernity has from the beginning had an intimate relation to racial subordination and colonization ...

the nation-state is a machine that produces Others, creates racial difference, and raises boundaries that

delimit and support the modern subject of sovereignty."xiv I must briefly stress that the complete

elimination of language of opposition is impossible, for the processes of human meaning-making are

based upon difference, and it is upon difference that binaries are structured. "Difference matters

because it is essential to meaning; without it meaning could not exist ... [and] the 'Other' is

fundamental to the constitution of the self."xv The creation of a self (such as a national identity) is

dependent upon the existence of an Other, thus the rhetorical construction of the Other and language

of opposition are inherent to the human process of understanding. This may be benign when basing

identity on peaceful cultural differences- such as: the French like stinky cheese while Americans

prefer hamburgers- but these processes become dangerous when used to create an enemy in order to

justify violence against, and subordination of, other human beings. While the rhetorical creation of the

Other may be an effective short-term solution in justifying violence in the attempt to retain control of

the dominant systems of power, it will fail in producing such control, for the binary will be met with

resistance and revolt. This is a historical assumption, as the United States rests on a creation narrative

of revolt against systems of oppression, and while the use of the rhetorical framing of an Other will

always occur, the oppressors will eventually fail. The importance of this work is to highlight language

of opposition that is used to justify violence and reify power structures, for it is this use of rhetoric

that keeps us from moving forward peacefully toward an era in which difference is accepted. Section

1: Muammar al-Gaddafi- Product of the Binary The use of the good/evil binary in mediated political

rhetoricxvi has become a staple for the U.S. government in justifying the War on Terror, during which

we have witnessed multiple examples of language of opposition and rhetorical creations of an evil

Other/enemy. In the original conflict, President George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden rhetorically

constructed each other as evil enemies. Bin Laden defined U.S. capitalism as evil, and Bush as the

crusading leader of this power-hungry society. Bush's rhetorical path was somewhat less smooth. The

conflict began with overall indictment of the Muslim culture as backwards, but as racial problems in

America emerged from this rhetoric, he carefully and quickly re-defined the enemy as a radical group

who do not represent all Muslims, and who are crazy and different from "good" Muslims. Bin Laden

was portrayed as the crazy, extremist leader of this group, who were quickly defined as terrorists. The

war moved rapidly from a war in Afghanistan to a global War on Terror and finally to the War in Iraq.

Over the past five years, Americans have witnessed the U.S. government justify violence through the

rhetorical creation of an enemy, today labeled as the 'terrorist,' (including those labeled as a supporter

terrorists, the definition of which ranges from allowing labeled terrorists to stay in a country, to the

possession of nuclear weapon technology). While rhetoricians have examined the implications of this

language from a number of angles and instances, the essential binary remains constructed and often

uncontested or overlooked within our culture's language. One example of language of opposition that

remains relatively unexamined is the rhetorical construction of the leader of Libya, Muammar al-

Gaddafi- particularly the rhetorical relocation of Gaddafi from one side of the binary (evil) to the

other (good) over the past ten years. Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, political discourse

portrayed Gaddafi as an other/evil enemy and as a primary sponsor and supporter of international

terrorism. During the period, Gaddafi incurred numerous economic sanctions and military attacks. In

1999, economic problems from imposed sanctions forced Gaddafi to attempt to re-enter the

international fold, but the U.S. government would not remove sanctions without Gaddafi's promise to

disband nuclear intelligence and repay the families of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.xvii When

Gaddafi finally gave into Western requests in 2003, sanctions were lifted and the political discourse

surrounding Gaddafi changed, discursively leading to the removal of Libya from the State Sponsors of

Terrorists listxviii in May 2006. This section of the essay will first examine political and journalistic

rhetoric from the 1980s that discursively portrayed Gaddafi as an evil enemy, thus justifying violence

against him and his people. I will then examine the same kind of rhetoric from the past five or so

years that portrayed Gaddafi as a man who underwent a change of character to become the U.S

government's number one ally in the Middle East. The Construction of Gaddafi as an Evil Other

Throughout the 1970s, Western leaders associated Gaddafi and his regime with terrorist activities, and

by the mid-1980s, Journalists mirrored the rhetoric of Western politicians that portrayed Gaddafi as

the principal financier of international terrorism. The U.S. government tied Gaddafi's regime to acts of

terrorism including the 1972 Munich Olympics killing oflsraeli athletes, the 1973 assassination of the

U.S. ambassador to Sudan, and the 1975 raid of a meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting

Countries (OPEC) in Vienna, led by the international terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal. The U.S.

government also accused Gaddafi of supporting the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Irish

Republican Army (IRA), the Japanese Red Army, and others.xix While the list of Gaddafi's supposed

infractions goes on, I will narrow my examination to public discourse surrounding operation El

Dorado Canyon to illuminate language used to justify state violence and further Western systems of

power. In 1986, Western politicians blamed Qaddafi and his government for an attack on a

discotheque in Berlin that killed two U.S. servicemen, after which the U.S. Navy invaded the Gulf of

Sidra in the Mediterranean Sea. Libya claimed the gulf as territorial waters, and string of military

conflicts ensued.xx On April 14, in what was dubbed operation El Dorado Canyon, the U.S.

government bombed the Libya's capitol, Tripoli, striking Gaddafi's home and killing a number of

civilians including Gaddafi's young adopted daughter. The U.S. government had to justify these

actions, so "the administration charged that its leader, Mohammar Qaddafi, was organizing terrorist

strikes on Americans and U.S. interests abroad."xxi The news media disseminated this political

rhetoric to portray Operation El Dorado Canyon as the necessary eradication of an irrational evil

enemy, allowing for the motivations behind violent acts to remain unchallenged. "When it crune to

defining the problem, the media overwhelmingly favored the administration,"xxii thus journalists

allowed the government to disseminate language of opposition to the public without question. While

the journalists failed to perform their duty as the watchdog of the government, the audience (Western

civilians), also failed to question this language. The discourse surrounding Gaddafi in the 1980s

exemplifies the use of the rhetorical arsenal necessary to create an enemy using a good versus evil

binary. There are a number of rhetorical tools commonly used in this process including: the creation

of the self/audiencexxiii, the process of dehumanization, and the "three topoi" xxiv as theorized by

Robert Ivie. The placement of Gaddafi as the evil Other within the binary of good versus evil,

simplified the justification of violence against him and his supporters. As Dr. Rosa Eberly explains,

the designation of an Other as evil is dangerous because "while 'evil' might function for some

audiences as an answer to forensic questions, it does little to provide guidance for deliberative

questions ... claims about evil shut down deliberation."xxv The binary of good/evil becomes harmful

when used to rhetorically create an enemy because when political rhetoric constitutes a person as the

evil Other, the self (in this case the American/Western audience of this rhetoric) will aim for the

complete eradication of the evil, even through violent means. This rhetoric also positions the audience

as striving for goodness at the risk of becoming evil, thereby forcing the audience to fight evil while

satisfyingly positioning them as good. In 2000, journalist Ugboaja Ohaegbulam explained how this

discourse functions, its implications, and how Gaddafi had been placed within a binary at the aim of

creating an enemy: Over the past three decades, casting leaders of foreign countries as Hitler's and

their countries as evil empires has become the staple of U.S. foreign policy. U.S. Administrations ...

have tended to use such characterizations as a shorthand justification for a number of invasions,

bombing sorties, and military buildups. Conducting foreign policy in this fashion, however, can have

serious drawbacks. Castigating foreign leaders and America's enemies as evil personifies raises the

stakes of operations and leaves little room for a nuanced and often more practical approach to conflict

resolution. Americans troubled relations with Libya have been a victim of this approach for about

thirty years. ,,xxvi A common rhetorical tool used to create an enemy is known as "imperial

savagery."xxvii In this method, the political rhetorician portrays a culture as backwards and in need of

saving. John R. Butler defines this type of rhetoric as, "the development of a primitive society that

does not appreciate its problems or the benevolent intentions of those who wish to help [and] the

identification of a solution that constitutes bringing civilization to a troubled culture."xxviii James

Bovard, a writer for the Future of Freedom Foundation, discusses the Reagan Administration's use of

this tactic when it proposes that the Libyan people are trapped by Gaddafi and need to be saved by

America. At the same time, Bovard argues, the U.S. government warns the Libyan people that

Qaddafi's evil acts implicate them as enemies to the Western world: While the U.S. government

insisted that the killing of civilians was an accident, a Voice of America broadcast that night warned

the Libyan people, "The people of the U.S. bear Libya and its people no enmity or hatred. However ...

so long as Libyans obey his orders, then they must accept the consequences. Colonel Qaddafi is your

tragic burden. xxix Another example of imperial savagery appeared in a speech Reagan gave the night

before Operation El Dorado Canyon when he said "I'm sure that today most Libyans are ashamed and

disgusted that this man has made their country a synonym for barbarism around the world. The

Libyan people are a decent people caught in the grip of a tyrant. ,,xxx Dehumanization is another

primary component of the process of enemy-making, for the construction of the enemy as evil and

non-human justifies killing the enemy. Ivie refers to the result ofthis rhetoric as a 'just' or justified war.

He explains that "warfare is characterized as a means of last resort, a necessary evil forced upon a

reluctant nation by the aggressive acts of an enemy bent upon the alienation of humarikind from their

liberties."xxxi The self/good side, in fighting against an aggressor, is freed from responsibility for the

conflict and has been forced to war as the victim of an attack by evil. This "victimage rhetoric"xxxii

allows for complete justification for war through the projection of the aggressor as a savage with

irrational desires for domination. The use of this topoi was seen clearly when Reagan stated that

"Colonel Qadhafi had engaged in acts of international terror, acts that put him outside the company of

civilized men," and said that the bombing at La Belle Discotheque was a "monstrous brutality" that

was "but the latest act in Colonel Qadhafi's reign of terror.""""iu This language portrays Gaddafi as a

non-human, for he is not like 'civilized men,' thus constructing him as an enemy who can be killed

without remorse. Ivie lays out the three topoi (means of justification) against the enemy, all of which

the U.S. government applied to Gaddafi both in relation to his own actions and through his

associations with other 'enemies' such as terrorists, and to his possession of 'weapons of mass

destruction.' The first oftopos, 'force versus freedom,' posits that everyone has a right to freedom and

that the good side can offer that freedom. In this construction, a political rhetorician constructs the

good side as fighting in defense of freedom against an enemy who is forcefully threatening to remove

said freedoms, thereby forcing the self to retaliate with even greater force, and so on. During

Operation El Dorado Canyon, Reagan argues that the U.S. and its allies are fighting to defend the

freedom that Gaddafi is forcefully trying to destroy, so the U.S. must in tum use force to protect that

freedom: Our friends and allies in Europe ... understand better than most that there is no security, no

safety, in the appeasement of evil. It must be the core of Western policy that there be no sanctuary for

terror. And to sustain such a policy, free men and free nations must unite and work together.xxxiv By

declaring that not just America, but all of its allies in Europe, are fighting for freedom, Reagan is

creating an enemy who threatens an entire way of life. This enemy is dangerous not only to the U.S.,

but to all who are good who defend security and safety, therefore the eradication of this enemy is all

the more justified. The second topos is the construction of "irrational versus rational,"xxxv in which

the enemy and his ideas are irrational because hexxxvi is crazy and non-human, while the selfs ideas

are rational, as he is sane and human. This method is employed in an article in which the bureau chief

of The New York Times in Madrid, Edward Schumacher, portrayed Gaddafi as a crazy person. "Many

have wondered: is Qaddafi mad? A megalomaniac? Otherwise respectable psychologists have tried to

analyze him from afar ... While many of those around him are corrupt, Qaddafi by all accounts is not,

making him the worst sort of dictator: a true-believing one."xxxvii By positioning him as crazy by all

Western standards, and then labeling him as a dictator, who by definition is contrary to Democracy

and therefore is an enemy, Schumacher reflects the perspective intended by the government that

Gaddafi is indeed an irrational evil enemy. This topos suggests that it is the job of the self to contain

and tame the other because they are too irrational to fix themselves, which we see when Schumacher

said that psychologists (assumed to be sane/Western) have studied this Other-a 'madman' who truly

believes that he is an honorable revolutionary. The language in a 1986 Newsweek article also shows

the use of the "irrational versus rational"xxxviii topos when it quotes former Secretary of State

George Shultz as encouraging a coup in Libya, and quotes an unnamed U.S. Official as saying that

"the problem is Kaddafi, not Libya. nxxxix The language in this article assumes that Gaddafi is a

problem without question, saying Reagan's advisors "believe it [eliminating Kaddafi] will stop Libya's

troublemaking." The article concludes by stating that: Trying to reason with him [Kaddafi] has failed

... and organizing sanctions has proved either impossible or ineffective. With all other possibilities

blocked, administration hands say, they decided months ago that military pressure was the only choice

left. 'The debate about options,' says one senior official, 'ended late last year. ,,,xi This article argues

that rational methods of peace-making such as 'reason' or 'sanctions' have failed because Gaddafi is an

irrational being, leaving the government with no other choice but to use violence to topple this non-

human threat. The third topos defined by Ivie is "aggression versus defense,"xli which assumes that

the enemy was the voluntary and initial aggressor, and we (the self) are involuntary and defensive in

our response. A New York Times article from 1986 begins with, "Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is

spreading death beyond Libya's borders again,"xlii and refers to Gaddafi's involvement in Chad as

"naked aggression."xliii The journalist then portrayed the U.S. government as the needed defenders of

good in the world, thus portraying it as a hero against the enemy: "The Reagan Administration's

response is as welcome as it is swift. It is reassuring to see that, despite the Iran-contra affair,

Washington can still respond to a crisis in a way that appears timely, measured and open."xliv In a

speech given the night before Operation El Dorado Canyon, Reagan uses this topos most often of the

three. He stated that "self-defense is not only our right, it is our duty,"'1 • and that Americans wanted a

peaceful solution, but that Gaddafi the aggerssor did not allow it: We Americans are slow to anger. We

always seek peaceful avenues before resorting to the use of force -- and we did. We tried quiet

diplomacy, public condemnation, economic sanctions, and demonstrations of military force. None

succeeded. Despite our repeated warnings, Qadhafi continued his reckless policy of intimidation, his

relentless pursuit of terror. xlvi This statement rhetorically constructs 'we Americans' as the good,

humane, and rational side who tried to resolve the conflict in a peaceful manner, but because of

Gaddafi's irrational and aggressive tactics, we were forced to use violence in order to conquer this

extremely dangerous threat. All three topoi of justification allow for the dehumanization of the enemy

in such a way that absolves the self of any responsibility for the violence that comes with the conflict.

Through this process, the call to war is portrayed as a last option; a final resort in saving the good in

the world (the self) that is being threatened by evil. This rhetorical construction became the

foundation of the American War on Terror, and it continues to be relevant to all who are portrayed as

the evil Other by association with groups of peoples or activities already constituted in the American

identity as evil. In the 1980s, political rhetoricians constructed Gaddafi as the evil enemy using

common rhetorical tools of enemy-making. I will now examine to current discourse that constructs

Gaddafi as a person who, due to a change of character (as opposed to a change in policy), has moved

to the 'good' side of the binary by attaining the identity of the self. When reading this next section,

keep in mind the tools of dehumanization and the three topoi discussed in the previous section, for

their use in the past construction of Gaddafi as an enemy is crucial to the relocation of Gaddafi from

enemy to ally. This narrative of an other-turned-self highlights Gaddafi's human nature by showing

how he has undergone a change of heart, thus providing proof that he has moved from the side of the

inhumane/irrational/aggressive/evil other to the side of the humane/rational/passive/good self. The

Construction of Gaddaji as a Self In 2003, the U.S. government announced to Western audiences that

Gaddafi planned to end his nuclear weapons program. From 2003 to the removal of Libya from the

State Sponsors of Terrorism list in May 2006, Western politicians began to change their rhetoric

surrounding Gaddafi in the hopes that he would smoothly transition from enemy to ally in the eyes of

the Western audiences. Using the same processes that were used when creating Gaddafi as an enemy,

politicians were able to construct Gaddafi as an Other who has, with the help of the civilized Western

world, been reformed to become less like an enemy (irrational, inhumane, crazy) and more like the

self (rational, human, sane). In addition to political rhetoric, I will examine newspaper articles in

which journalists' construction of Gaddafi mirrors that of the politicians in showing the successful

relocation of Gaddafi within the good/evil binary. An important rhetorical tool in the creation of an

enemy is the creation of the self, which appears when Gaddafi is framed to have "decided" to tum

away from activities identified with the "other" such as terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction,

and join the identity of the "self." John M. Murphy explains that political rhetoricians provided a

construction "through which the audience was to interpret its identity. Simply put, we were good and

they were evil."1 This process was applied to Gaddafi, for when associated with terrorism and

WMD's, he was an enemy, a non-human and an Other. When language constitutes him as someone

who was an enemy in the past, it implies that he is by default now a self. Gaddafi's movement from

one side of the other is primarily constructed through language that shows him to be removing his

identity from things that we regularly identify in tandem with enemies or otherness, including

terrorism and nuclear proliferation. By removing these aspects from Gaddafi's identity, it is easy to

construct him as an ally. A BBC article from 2006 clearly shows how Gaddafi has become more like

the self in noting his humanity (an important aspect of self-ness ): "looking and sounding increasingly

weary, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, 64, seems to have come to terms with his own mortality."xlvii The

article portrays him as one who was once an other: "he [Gaddafi] has ruled his country in the style of

the most eccentric of absolute monarchs imaginable," but then shows his change of character: "with

the wisdom of years perhaps, the Libyan leader has tried hard to tum a new page and clean up the

image of his country as a haven for revolutionaries."xlviii The article shows that Gaddafi has been

rewarded for his choice to become more like the Western self: the decision of the U.S. to restore full

diplomatic relations with Libya marks the crowning success of his efforts to have his country accepted

back into the international community. He would clearly like a skeptical world to see this as final

proof that he and his country have cast aside their rebellious streak."xlix In this article, Gaddafi is

shown as a formerly crazy revolutionary who has come to his senses and accepted the correct way of

life; the life of the Western self. Another BBC article in 2004 says that Gaddafi was once "one of the

West's bogeymen," who has "turned into, if not exactly a new friend, then someone the West is doing

business with,"1 providing discursive proof that Gaddafi is no longer the evil other of the 1970s and

80s. A BBC article from September 2005 called Libya the "Washington fairytale," in reference to

Gaddafi's decision to end Libya's nuclear weapons program. The article states that "once seen in

Washington as a typical 'rogue state,' Libya has now definitively come in from the cold." The article

calls Libya "a country once condemned for its involvement in international terrorism and for having

clandestine weapons programmes," again showing a previous (and now non-existent) identity

associated with concepts that define Otherness. This language highlights the idea that Gaddafi was an

enemy in the past, implying that he is no longer such thus, according to the binary, he has become

more like the self. The article again emphasizes Gaddafi's past identity as an enemy, calling Gaddafi a

"maverick veteran" and highlights his change of character, saying that Arabs were "as surprised as

anyone when Libya admitted responsibility for the Lockerbie and French airliner bombings," Ii

showing that his change of character was unexpected due to his past evilness, thus highlighting that he

has truly changed. Journalist Anthony Layden said that Gaddafi chose "a radical change of

direction,"1 ii emphasizing Gaddafi's move from the side of the enemy/other to the side of the self, for

an enemy can not be like the self unless his previous moral deficiencies (upon which or justification

of violence against him rested) have been removed or remedied. While many journalists reflected the

language of the political rhetoricians, one New York Times writer makes note of, and denounces, the

change in political rhetoric. He shows Gaddafi' s past status as an enemy by referring to Gaddafi as, "a

onetime bitter enemy [that] the U.S. government had tired for years to isolate, topple, or kill,"1 iii thus

noting Gaddafi's past location within the binary. The article quoted Noman Benotman,1 iv as saying

that "anyone who is an enemy ofKadafi is also an enemy of the United States," showing how Gaddafi

has literally become part of the self as an ally to the U.S. government. The article then quoted Ashur

Shamis,1 v as recognizing the change in Western rhetoric, saying that "Kadafi was considered to be a

dictator and terrorist, and Libya was a rogue regime ... suddenly, everything has changed. Kadafi used

to be public enemy No. 1 and now you are arresting people based on his information ... "1 vi While

this article ultimately questions the change of rhetoric, it still uses language of opposition, and