Aug 28, 2009 6:38 pm


This is the Scottish minister who gladdened the heart of terrorists while ignoring the feelings of hundreds of terror victims. I wonder how much Qaddafi paid him for his contribution to his manufactured celebration of the 40 anniversary of his Libyan tyranny?

May his name be erased from the annals of man. He is an amoral weakling.

My pay off comment was a mere educated guess. Now, Qaddafi father and son confirm it:

But opposition leaders say comments from Gadhafi's son - who said the release was often brought up during trade talks - should be examined.

"It is very important, I think, for the reputation of our institutions of justice that it is made clear beyond any doubt that this was not connected with some political trade," David Lidington, the Conservative Party's spokesman on foreign affairs, told the BBC. . . .

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Friday condemned the scenes as"deeply distressing," He insisted any suggestion that the release was spurred by commercial interests was"a slur both on myself and on the government. . . ."

But pressure increased in London after Libyan television showed pictures of Gadhafi praising Prime Minister Gordon Brown,"the Queen of Britain, Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew, who all contributed to encouraging the Scottish government to take this historic and courageous decision, despite the obstacles."

Gordon Brown's letter to Qaddafi reveals his culpability as well as that of Blair. 'UK cited Blair-Gaddafi deal to push bomber's release'.

When will Brown come out of hiding? PM urged to break 'cowardly' silence as Britain faces U.S. Lockerbie boycott.

Well, you lie down with dogs . . . .And the British elite certainly did.

Defending Megrahi's release, he added: 'It was my responsibility to decide upon these two applications. They were my decisions and my decisions alone.' He told the session he had asked the views of the British government and offered it the chance to make representations or provide information. 'They declined to do so. They simply informed me that they saw no legal barrier to transfer and that they gave no assurances to the US Government at the time. They declined to offer a full explanation. I found that highly regrettable.' he said.

David Frum asks some pertinent questions;

The president's defenders applaud his restrained language. The blogger Matthew Yglesias wrote in praise of Obama's"no drama foreign policy":"Talking with the U.K. government in advance about our objections to releasing a Lockerbie bomber might achieve something. But loudly denouncing them ex post facto isn't going to help anyone or improve anything."

But the question raised by the president's muted response to the release is precisely that. Did the U.S. administration speak to the U.K. about the release in advance? And what did the U.S. say? . . .

But here's the question that has yet to be asked by U.S. reporters: Where was the Obama administration during these U.K. machinations?

We do know that the British kept the U.S. briefed well enough for American diplomats to protest the looming U.K./Scottish decision. At the same time, we read in the British press that U.S. officials indicated that they preferred a humanitarian release to a prisoner transfer.

Those reports raise further questions:

Exactly how vigorously did the Obama administration protest? Why did those protests produce so little result? Do Britons/Scots feel so little regard for the new Obama administration that they ignore its strong complaints? Or were complaints possibly less than strong? After all, a complaint in the form,"We don't want you to do X, but if you must do X, we prefer that you do it in the following way ..." does not constitute a very resounding warning.

Of course not, the weakling Scott nationalist was taken to the cleaners:

Other evidence suggesting the British government, rather than its weaker Scottish partner, was the driving force behind Megrahi's release has emerged in the form of a letter Ivor Lewis, a junior minister at the British Foreign Office, wrote to Mr. MacAskill on Aug. 3. In that letter, parts of which have been leaked to the British press, Mr. Lewis tells Mr. MacAskill that there is no legal reason not to accede to Libya's request to transfer Megrahi into its custody under the terms of an agreement reached between Mr. Blair and Gadhafi senior in 2004 to strengthen U.K.-Libyan diplomatic ties. This agreement was negotiated in the wake of the historic nuclear deal.

According to a Scottish government source quoted in the British press over the weekend (who says he's seen the entire letter), Mr. Lewis wrote,"I hope on this basis you will now feel able to consider the Libyan application [for Megrahi's release]."

Stratfor Reports Libya was guilty but there is no longer a chance to prove the guilt of Qaddafi and his fellow higher-ups.

comments powered by Disqus