Scarborough: Did Obama sign off on the Lockerbie bomber’s release?

posted at 6:29 pm on August 31, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite. I’m guessing the answer is no, for the simple reason that The One gets nothing from doing so except a pounding political headache. Why would he okay it given the suspicions that he’s soft on terror?

A better question: If he didn’t sign off, do the Brits have little so esteem for him that they’d do the deal anyway? Frum wonders.

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 British/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.

If the U.S. complaints about the decision to release were as weak as reported, why were they so weak? Many in the intelligence community have long doubted that the Libyans were in fact responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. Serious people have argued for 20 years that the attack originated in Syria and Iran. Does Secretary of State Hillary Clinton share those doubts?

Remember, the Scots reportedly promised the Clinton administration that Megrahi would do his time in Scotland, a fact evidently not pressed upon them by our first lady turned secretary of state. Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer very stupidly is demanding sanctions against Britain if the reports of an oil deal being behind Megrahi’s release prove true; expect him to tone it down after The One reminds him that (a) the less attention the media pays to this story, the better, and (b) given Britain’s anxiousness to get out of Afghanistan, the U.S. is in no position to be making any unfriendly gestures these days. In fact, maybe that’s the answer: How could Obama pound the table about Megrahi when reports about the need for more troops in Afghanistan are all over the news? We have no leverage. Advantage: Britain.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Why would he okay it given the suspicions that he’s soft on terror?

I don’t think Obama or his minions even had a clue as to who this guy was, OR, understood about how it would play here.

Remember, they live in their own little bubble, where they only hear what they say themselves. The folks who CARE about this are Conservatives, and the VICTIMS famililes, neither of whom have any power or voice in the White House.

Next? I expect Brown to throw Obama under the Bus…. saying his admin signed off on this… with documentation.

Romeo13 on August 31, 2009 at 8:12 PM

We`re getting our balls handed to us from all corners of the globe!

ThePrez on August 31, 2009 at 6:35 PM

We voted for a no experienced light weight college minded president, we got what we hired.

Wade on August 31, 2009 at 8:12 PM

The One gets nothing from doing so except a pounding political headache.

Quid pro quo for the Uyghurs in Bermuda.

Cindy Munford on August 31, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Where’s Daniel Hannen when we need him? And by “we” I mean “they” and by “they” I mean the Brits? ^^

Orange Doorhinge on August 31, 2009 at 8:22 PM

We let terrorist go in Bermuda without letting the Brits know. Payback is a bitch.

OldSarg on August 31, 2009 at 8:49 PM

Maybe it’s just payback for dumping Uighers in Bermuda without asking…

Machete_Bug on August 31, 2009 at 8:49 PM

The Brits freed the Lockerbie Bomber in response to the US dumping Guantanamo terrorists into Bermuda.

jaime on August 31, 2009 at 6:40 PM

I had the same thought.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 31, 2009 at 8:53 PM

canopfor on August 31, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Just call me Carnac the Magnificent :)

Buy Danish on August 31, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Buy Danish:Hehe,-:):):)

canopfor on August 31, 2009 at 9:04 PM

Metaphorically we are being taken for a ride. We are Mary Jo Kopechne and Obie-None-Cohones is the Duke of Chappaquidick.

MaiDee on August 31, 2009 at 9:33 PM

I thought we elected Black Jesus so other countries would do what we wanted?

Speedwagon82 on August 31, 2009 at 9:48 PM

I’m guessing the answer is no, for the simple reason that The One gets nothing from doing so except a pounding political headache.

I’m guessing the answer is yes, for the simple reason that the One has proven himself time and again to be totally incompetent.

Mike Honcho on August 31, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Ramadan gift #7
http://www.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/bahrain/10344953.html

Was Eric Holder involved ?

macncheez on August 31, 2009 at 9:57 PM

This is one case where we … the people have to act.

Obviously our government can terminate ties with the U.K. – or even hint at sanctions. The U.K. has bled with us.

So this is where the power of the people come in. Boycott everything British and Scotish. In this manner – we can exact an economic toll on them while our government can continue comfortable relations.

Nations should not only concern with how the leaders of other nations will react to their policies – they should be concerned with the way the people of those nations will react also.

HondaV65 on August 31, 2009 at 10:59 PM

Did Obama sign off on negotiate the Lockerbie bomber’s release?

29Victor on September 1, 2009 at 2:36 AM

It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if it comes out that Barry supported this him being pro-terrorist and all.

pitter43 on September 1, 2009 at 7:52 AM

This hypocrisy is getting a bit much.I will explain why there is a muted response from the British people over his release.The special relationship that isn’t so special.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_arms_importation
That campaign of terror, waged against British citizens

for more than 30 years, was bankrolled by donations from the USA — and in those 30 years the U.S would not extradite wanted terrorists to face charges here, despite our repeated requests.
Both federal and local US courts refused extradition requests almost as policy, while the funding of the IRA continued without interruption and was still raking in the money even after 9/11, when the Americans suddenly decided that they ought to start proscribing certain terrorist groups. The IRA was not, for some time, one of the groups so proscribed.

The U.S gave visa’s to known I.R.A members to fund raise against our governments wishes.
Resulting in this,
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30003.html

Gerry Adams was given the keys to New York by Rudy Giuliani.
He has even had a street named after him.
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/giuliani-gave-award-to-terror-chief

Bars in Boston had drinks called ‘kill a brit’ and ‘carbomb’(The I.R.A invented the road side bomb that is killing our soldiers and yours).Money for ‘the cause’.Killing Irish and British civilians.

Weapons sent included semtex and surface to air missiles,we didn’t intercept them all.

These were used to bomb places like Harrods on Christmas Eve.
Shopping centres the day before mothers day killing children shopping for their gifts and card’s.
On remembrance sunday they blew up a church service killing old soldiers with their medals on.

U.S money was sent to help the families of killed or imprisoned ‘comrades’ and to keep their graves nice and tidy.

The IRA nearly killed Prime Minister Thatcher and her cabinet with a bomb in 1984, and it assassinated prominent British politicians and members of the royal family.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/12/newsid_2531000/2531583.stm

It is actually the 30yr anniversary of the killing of Lord Mountbatten.The I.R.A did what they called ‘a spectactular’(sounds familiar).
Two high targets on the same day,with the soldiers they timed the second bomb to go off as the emergency services arrived.

Rep. Peter King–for years, the congressman was alinged with “one of the most violent terrorist groups in recent European history”–the IRA

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/member-87856-attention-politicians.html

The politician once called the IRA “the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland,” he was banned from the BBC by British censors for his pro-IRA views, and he refused to denounce the IRA when one of its mortar bombs killed nine Northern Irish police officers. But Mr. King is now one of America’s most outspoken foes of terrorism.

He forged links with leaders of the IRA and Sinn Fein in Ireland, and in America he hooked up with Irish Northern Aid, known as Noraid, a New York based group that the American, British, and Irish governments often accused of funneling guns and money to the IRA.

He spoke regularly at Noraid protests and became close to the group’s publicity director, the Bronx lawyer Martin Galvin, a figure reviled by the British.

Much of the conventional weaponry and a great deal of the money necessary for IRA violence came from Irish-American sympathizers. Mr. King’s advocacy of the IRA’s cause encouraged that flow and earned him the deep-seated hostility of the British and Irish governments

During his visits to Ireland, Mr. King would often stay with well-known leaders of the IRA, and he socialized in IRA drinking haunts.

At one of such clubs, the Felons, membership was limited to IRA veterans who had served time in jail.

Mr. King would almost certainly have been red-flagged by British intelligence as a result, but the experience gave him plenty of material for the three novels he subsequently wrote featuring the I.R.A

Nobody deserves terrorism. We supported you following 9/11.

Boycott ,please do ,start a campaign,sanctions against us all.Await the backlash and the truth.

mags on September 1, 2009 at 8:37 AM

mags: ILLICIT support from private US citizens are not morally equivalent to Libya’s LICIT Libyan state-sponsorship (cited in your wiki source) of Kaddafi’s IRA terrorist proxies.

Can you please explain why the IRA victims are suing Libya, and not the US?

/qed

Terp Mole on September 1, 2009 at 9:05 AM

To be clear, I still reflexively spit on the steps of partisan Irish Pubs. Gerry Adams and Ted Kennedy used to walk from Friends of Sinn Fein HQ up Massachusetts Avenue to Kelly’s Irish Times– or down to Hawk and Dove– and plot Irish-Marxist terror. I will not patronize them and encourage others to shun them as well. They have much innocent blood on their hands that will never wash away. Those Leftist-fascists are our common enemies in this fight.

I also disagree with those who want to boycott Scotland. The Scottish people showed nothing but kindness and compassion to American victims families. They do not support Megrahi’s release by their drunk and disorderly soccer yob Justice Minister MacAskill– any more than most American supported Ted Kennedy and other Leftists who stood with Sinn Fein terrorism.

The IRA and Kaddafi must be very pleased with the discord they’ve sown in the Atlantic alliance.

/spit

Terp Mole on September 1, 2009 at 9:52 AM

As far as I can see, America’s only sensible option is a ‘revenge release’ of Mark Chapman.

SamTrev on September 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Breaking: 800 French dancers perform for Kaddafi’s 40th Gala today… while 54 French UTA 772 bombing victims spin their graves.

/nauseating

Terp Mole on September 1, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Kaddafi celebrates 40 years of tyranny– by shaking his innocent victim’s corpse at America;

Muammar Gaddafi hits out on 40th anniversary of Libyan coup

Col Gaddafi dedicated the first spectacular mass performance of a week of celebration to his adopted daughter Hannah, who was killed in an American air raid on Tripoli in 1986. The events appear designed to inflame tensions with America and Britain, after several years of steadily improving relations.

Baloney! Year after year, the Reagan-Thatcher hating mainstream media continues to uncritically repeat Kaddafi’s propaganda lie.

Kaddafi “adopted” that child’s corpse– AFTER he had her killed as a human shield in Operation El Dorado Canyon. This coward habitually surrounded himself with Libyan children to deter attacks. Her blood (like so many others) is on his hands.

/sickening

Terp Mole on September 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM

ILLICIT support from private US citizens are not morally equivalent to Kaddafi’s LICIT Libyan state-sponsorship of their IRA terrorist proxies (as your wiki source cites).

Why? Because Americans got killed?
Are you saying that there is moral terrorism(I.R.A) and not moral(libya)?
It would be interesting to address that.

It was your Government that issued visa’s to known terrorist’s to fund against our governments wishes,without pre-condition’s.

And it’s a flimsy distinction because if the US government had a problem with it they would have legislated to prevent . Plus you only had to attend a Patrick’s Day parade’s to witness how enthusiastically the Yanks backed Irish terrorism.

It was your government that invited known terrorists to the whitehouse for a sing-a-long.This legitimized ‘the cause’.

Didn’t George Bush say that there is no difference between terrorists and those countries that harbour and fund them, or turn a blind eye.

In fact, now that I come to think of it, both Libya and the USA were pretty much on the same side over anti-terrorism where the IRA were concerned.
Libya said,’our enemies enemy-our friend’Was the U.K your enemy as well?

‘Can you please explain why the IRA victims are suing Libya, and not the US?’

/qed

That is being debated here now.The victims will be well supported from the government and the people to bring cases against U.S support for the slaughter of british and irish civilians.

mags on September 1, 2009 at 11:06 AM

There are other reason’s why here in the U.K it was not met with such hysteria.

It’s up to the Scottish people.Devolution makes them accountable for their laws.Similar to your state laws and federal laws.

This goes back years,deals must of been done,don’t be so naive,to even get Libya to extradite in the first place,stop funding terrorism and training camps(used by the I.R.A) and not develop nuclear weapons.

The conspiracy is more to do with the trial. The evidence against him was shockingly weak.
Of course it was all planned and carried out by one man! He was a scapegoat spat out by Gaddafi.

He has dropped his appeal into his case,which was due soon.

Even leaders of the victims of Lockerbie here are calling for an inquiry into his case,they even question his guilt.

The choice was release him and be condemned,or re-open the ‘evidence’ and reap the whirlwind.

mags on September 1, 2009 at 11:46 AM

mag: Are you saying that there is moral terrorism(I.R.A) and not moral(libya)?

No. I’m saying what I said. Read for comprehension. ILLICIT support by US citizens (which I spit upon) is NOT morally equivalent to LICIT Libyan state-sponsorship.

Many US citizens gave illicit (read: unlawful) support to IRA terrorists. Those IRA-huggers were treated by our government in much the same manner Hamas- and Hezbollah-huggers are today (rarely prosecuted, often courted by the Left)– and that tolerance of evil is grievous to average Americas.

That is not the same as the licit (read: lawful) money, support, training, and arms directly supplied to IRA terrorist proxies by their Libyan state-sponsors. The Czech-produced Semtex explosives you keep citing came from Libya (not America!) and was the same Libyan Semtex that destroyed Clipper Maid of the Seas.

The laudable efforts by IRA victims’ families to hold Kaddafi accountable for his IRA proxy war against the UK is only undermined by these specious moral equivalency arguments; just as American shrieks to boycott Scotland only play into Kaddafi’s bloodsoaked claws.

/united we stand, divided we fall

Terp Mole on September 1, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Terp Mole on September 1, 2009 at 1:03 PM

The leaders of the political wing of Hamas and Hezbollah have not been invited to the Whitehouse.(yet).
The I.R.A were seen as freedom fighters in the U.S that was why you wouldn’t extradite them.

It was a political decision,you would not recognise the laws of our land.

Terp i know yourselves and other’s on the right view these terrorists as scum.
I know my critism is mainly about when left wing governments were in power.

But you are judged collectively,for staying quiet.

I know what you are trying to say,Libya as a government and a state is different from U.S left wing tossers drinking green beer whilst singing danny boy are totally different.

We don’t believe the U.S sanctioned I.R.A proxies to kill the British,

We and victims of the I.R.A believe your government could of done more to help us.
The I.R.A wasn’t even put on your Terrorist list.This was because of the Irish American vote.
Politically we were sold out.We expected more from our allie.

On 9/11 it was one of the first things asked to Tony Blair-do you think they will see the I.R.A as terrorists now?

The Libya done worse angle is irrelevent.

It’s because of the calls to boycott us and even sanction’s that has led to the resurgence of anger towards those in the U.S that supported and funded terrorism,and your governments tolerance ,political collusion ,lack of condamnation for years.

Do you know,after 9/11 the fundraising went down.A couple of years ago SinnFein were banned ,and couldn’t go to the whitehouse due to I.R.A atrocieties.
This led to I.R.A decommisioning weapon’s and the beginning of the end.

Just imagine if that was done sooner. It was your Government that had the key,not the individuals that gave money.

mags on September 1, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2