Sunday, July 25, 2010

Complicity

When new British Prime Minister David Cameron recently visited the U.S., he was (rightfully) grilled over last year's decision to release convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on "humanitarian" grounds. Al-Megrahi, the only individual prosecuted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 108 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, was allowed to go free last year, after doctors told Scottish officials that he was dying of prostate cancer. Returning to Libya, al-Megrahi was treated as a national hero.

Since then, Mr. al-Megrahi's health has taken an amazing turn for the better. Current medical assessments suggest the convicted bomber--responsible for the deaths of more than 100 American citizens--could easily live another 10 years. While Scottish authorities made the decision to release him, members of Congress pressed Mr. Cameron for more information on the decision-making process, including allegations that a British-Libyan oil deal may have influenced al-Megrahi's release.

Now, it appears that U.S. indignation over the matter was misplaced (at best) and hypocritical at worst. The Australian, quoting the U.K. Sunday Times, reports that Obama Administration officials told their Scottish counterparts that it would be "far preferable" to release al-Megrahi, rather than imprison him in Libya:

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.

So far, the U.S. has refused to release the letter (what a surprise). But the correspondence certainly puts our "anger" in a different context. After months of enduring political cheap shots from the Obama Administration--and their friends in Congress--the Brits apparently decided to fight back, releasing the full text of the U.S. embassy letter.

Of course, the note is anything but a revelation. The U.K. Guardian first reported the letter's existence (and its contents) last August; since then, the British media has published various accounts of British officials expressing disgust over our hypocrisy in the al-Megrahi matter.

As two U.K. governments have discovered, the Obama crowd will throw anyone under the bus to advance its aims. The Brits have clearly reached a breaking point with the Anointed One and his foreign policy team; look for more leaks this week, to put more pressure on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to reveal what they knew about the proposed release.

If history is any indicator, both the President and Secretary of State will feign ignorance of the plan to set al-Megrahi free. And the former members of "JournoList" will play right along. How long before one of them suggests branding David Cameron a racist, to deflect attention away from yet another administration blunder.

4 comments:

PCSSEPA said...

The decision by the Obama Administration to allow the release of Mr. al-Megrahi is quid pro quo for the payment of $1,000,000 to the Obama Presidential campaign by BP to secure the release of the terrorist/murderer in order to allow BP to secure a contract to drill for oil off the Lybian coast. It is really nothing more complicated than that - simple greed on both sides of the bribe.

PCSSEPA said...

We already know that Obama and his fellow travelers don't know squat about economics, but at least we learned what the million dollar contribution by BP to the Obama campaign bought - US acquiessence on the release of Mr. Magrahi back to Lybia. So, in the eyes of Mr. Obama and the rest of the members of his political brothel (no aspersion on brothels intended), the lives of all those killed on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland were only worth a million dollars to him. All this so BP can drill off the coast of Lybia. That my friends is a quid pro quo.

tfhr said...

PCSSEPA,

I would not put such a thing past either BP or the Obama Administration - just look at the quid pro quo Clinton pardons of Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican FALN terroristas - "Pardongate". CNN - with it's bias and history of cutting deals with Saddam - certainly won't do much to help on this topic but there needs to be more than suspicion here to make such a charge. I would like to see an investigation initiated just as soon as the Dems lose their majority in the House, but until that is underway, or better yet, completed, I would direct the effort towards uncovering evidence before making the charge.

boinky said...

There might be another simpler reason for Mr. AlMegrahi's long life: Chemotherapy.

The UK has a medical bureau called "NICE" that decides if you are allowed to get expensive medicines, including one for advanced prostate cancer.

Apparently Mr. Al Megrahi was seriously ill, and didn't meet their criteria, which insists you must be in fairly good health to get it. Hence, he probably would have died within three months (although Cancer of the prostate is notorious for having people live long even with widespread metastases).

I suspect he was given "state of the art" chemotherapy in Algeria, which means he will live another year or two at the most.

Alas, the only report I came across suggesting this might be the case was in the NYPost...but I'd love to get hold of his medical records to see if this is true.