This can’t be good. It’s now being reported that Obama’s White House backed Lockerbie Bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi’s release. The man that Scottish authorities released over to Libya so he could live out his last couple of months; Megrahi has cancer. Surprisingly though, he has managed to survive long past his expected expiration.
The saga of the Lockerbie Bomber continues to become more and more sordid. Mr. Obama just last week said that he would “grill” Prime Minister David Cameron on the details of the bomber’s release. JWF points out that Cameron wasn’t in office and had nothing to do with the release of the Lockerbie Bomber. It appears that maybe Mr. Obama is the one who needs to be “grilled.”
It also appears that Obama’s White House had as much or more to do with the Lockerbie Bomber receiving a “compassionate release” than did BP. As the tarnished company prepares to drill in Libya, some are asking whether or not BP lobbied for Megrahi’s release to win drilling contracts.
The actual culprit in the matter was deputy head of the US embassy in London, Richard LeBaron. He intervened in the process one week before Megrahi was released last August. He’s low enough on the totem pole that the White House can give Obama adequate cover in the matter and I suspect they will.
The last thing Obama needs right now is angry families of the Lockerbie Bomber victims to begin crying out that he lobbied for the “compassionate release” of a man who showed no compassion back in 1988. Just how involved Obama’s White House was in the release of the Lockerbie Bomber we may never know. One thing we know; Obama’s good at covering his hide.
July 25th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
The fact that “The Australian” prints a blatantly false headline, does not give you license to do the same. Its called lying.
All you need do is read the details:
“Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.”
July 25th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Shannon, this is disapointing of you, everyone who starts a new thread should at least do some fact checking out of respect for the readers so they aren’t led astray. Its a responsibility.
July 25th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
@ Joe
You could read ALL the details and discover that the only thing LeBaron actually OPPOSED was a transfer to a Libyan prison.
July 25th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
well this thread starts with Obama backed the lockerbie bombers release when even fox reports the Obama administraation was against his release to libia, and if it had to be done to keep him in scotland which I think means house arrest. Its not like obama’s administration was lobbying to release this person which is what the story suggests. Compassionate release is a politically very tricky wicket to thread and to just say no is the smart politics so they stumbled on this one but they weren’t the driving force.
July 25th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
That’s because they DID back his release on compassionate grounds.
July 25th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Brian, they should have said no and stuck with it.
July 25th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
no they didn’t back his release, they just said “if your going to release him, keep him in scotland”. that is very different. you guys just plain spin everything till it sounds an outrage. so now I can’t take anything seriously you say. And its too much work to have to fact check you guys. your ruining the blog!
July 25th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
yes Shannon, they should have “thought” and “realized” what this guy represents and just said no and stuck with it.
July 25th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
If they backed this stupid “compassionate release” then they “backed his release.”
It was disingenuous to go out and talk about how they disagreed with the decision when the whole time they were negotiating this “compassionate release angle.”
No they didn’t push for it, but they certainly didn’t raise heck about it.
July 25th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
AND once again—Accountabilty/Transparency Thing for the CIC’s team score—->ZERO
July 25th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
ummm, Shannon they did not back his release. They simply said if you are going to release him keep him in scotland and don’t send him to libya. They did not say release him or lobby for his release. That doesn’t sound like backing his release at all, but damage control to keep him still in their jurisdiction. Your being disingenuous here. don’t talk to me like I am stupid. I am not.
July 25th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@ Brian
Read what you just wrote and tell me you aren’t again. I need the laughs.
July 25th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
If he had died like he was supposed to they’d make sure everyone knew they were in favor of his ‘compassionate release’. Now that he is free and people are just keeps on living – outraging people, they say they disagreed with the decision.
Disingenuous is an understatement and the modus operandi for this administration.
July 25th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
They haven’t’ stuck to a decision they’ve made yet. This administration really is the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.
July 25th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
@ Beth Shaw
They have never backed down about “it” being Bush’s fault!
July 25th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Beth this post is disingenuous. Its title is misleading and ruins what little trust was between us reading these threads. Its one thing to work from a fact base and arrive at different political conclusions, but to use false and misleading facts as your basis of arguing a political point is totally dishonest. You guys just don’t get it do you, the difference between right and wrong. All you want is power for its own sake. So is Jeb Bush your next candidate? Thats what its come down to.
July 25th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Brian…you actually trusted these guys?!!
July 25th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
well we use to have a basic agreement to at least put some straight facts out there before we pundited on them. sure an occasional goof-up occured which was forgiveable, but this goes beyond the pale. You are right though and I am noting their pirhanua instinct even on fantasy flesh they put in the water. I thought people who claim to be conservatives had somekind of faithfulness to truth and honor, but as you can see….
July 25th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
This is for Brian, Joe Citizen, Michelle and any other Obama apologist who thinks this post is disingenuous or false.
From the australian:
“THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail 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.”
In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.
“The note added: “Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.”
This means that they would have rather had him released on compassionate grounds rather than remain a prisoner. It is what it is.
July 25th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Next they will be saying you must be exaggerating since Obama didn’t pick them up in Air Force One and fly him back to Libya himself.
July 25th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Shannon, I looked up a few articles myself, including fox’s coverage and nowhere did it say the obama administration rather he be released on compassionate grounds than remain a prisoner. The ambassador simply sloppily said that we didn’t want him released, but if they wree going to do it keep him in Scottland and don’t send him back to libya. That is what it was. Maybe you jumped the gun on this one or simply ment to be disingenuous but to keep lamely spinning it as obama advocating releasing this guy is just wrong. You don’t keep to the facts, and its all generated from an Australian journal and makes me think of rupert murdoch’s fox news here. If ABC and CNN say that obama advocated for this guys release, then maybe I would believe it, but I don’t see that happening.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
“The note added: “Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.”
Shannon Bell, how do you read this and come to the conclusion that the Obama administration advocated the prisoner’s release? It reads as if the Obama administration, considering that Scottish authorities had already decided that he was to be released, stated that it preferred he stay in Scotland rather than be released back to Libya. Reread it: “…if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi be released from Scottish custody…” then it’s preferrable he stay in Scotland under some authority than be sent home.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
“This means that they would have rather had him released on compassionate grounds rather than remain a prisoner.”
Not what any reasonable person will read into this at all.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Michelle, prisoner transfer means that he would have remained a prisoner in Libya. Why would the Administration not want him to remain a prisoner in Libya?
I want Charles Manson to remain a prisoner. I don’t care if it’s in California or Arkansas.
Why would they prefer he be released rather than be a prisoner in the custody of Libya?
July 25th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Brian I can assure you that I am not trying to be disingenuous. If more to this story emerges I’ll be the first to post it.
But also I’d like to say that ABC and CNN are not the be all end all in the news media.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Yes Michelle, you have it right. I felt the scots were determined in advance to release him and only mentioned it to the ambassador as an afterthought to keep things cordial. I think Obama could have made the mistake, or the Ambassadors supervisors in State or the White House of telling the scots flat out don’t release the guy because the families of the victims wouldn’t stand for it and neither would he. There are times when you have to be hard even with your allies so they get you mean business. You can’t be nice to everybody. I think there is the real story.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Brian I guess that’s kind of the point. ABC and CNN will never say that the Administration advocated or backed his release.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Latest news is that the Scots claim the White House objections were “half-hearted”.
Hmmm, guess that decision came from the Sissy Room!
July 25th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
well the california gubernator won’t ever release manson or any of his followers, I think Leslie Van Houtens and Bruce Davis recent parole hearings confirm that. I think there is a line drawn in the sand for mass or multiple murderers that your not getting out. One look at the Lockerbie bombers eyes and you get the distinct feeling he deserves no compassionate release.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
At least the Scots were polite, they should have said the White House objections were “half-@ssed”
I’m too funny today! I better go to bed before I laugh myself silly.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Michelle your point is valid IF the choices were Scottish prison or Libyan Freedom.
But since the Scots were giving him up no matter what (and I don’t blame Obama for that) the choice became Libyan prison or Libyan freedom. The Administration backed the latter. Why?
July 25th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
what are you saying ABC or CNN arent the more reputable networks? Sure they have editors, and publishers, and advertisers that all affect what they produce, but they are also full of honerable journalists that hold to a code pretty much. I am sure they have internal dissent and tensions, but I find them much more reliable and I also consult msnbc as a source to check on them, reuters, london times, the gaurdian, der spiegal, matt drudge, huff report, kos, and even brietbart and o’reilly and beck. The Economist is excellant as is the McLaughlin report. Wallstreet journal and Washington Post make fine reading. Even the NYT and LAT and CST and Christian Science Monitor. From all of that I have a pretty good feel for what constitutes fairly reliable reportage. I think OReilly trys to stay faithful to the truth, occasionally jumps the gun, so its not that a conservative commentator can’t carry water with me. I am not like you guys that just want to win at all costs. I want to determine the actual reality, the truth, and I hold to fairness.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
The bottom line is they screwed up…they didn’t think they would get caught. It is what it is.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
[...] Obama White House Backed Lockerbie Bomber Release » Right Pundits [...]
July 25th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
[...] Obama White House Backed Lockerbie Bomber Release » Right Pundits [...]
July 25th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
ok
July 26th, 2010 at 1:22 am
[...] View full post on Top Stories – Google Blog Search [...]
July 26th, 2010 at 1:28 am
[...] Obama White House Backed Lockerbie Bomber Release » Right Pundits [...]
July 26th, 2010 at 5:59 am
Brian I don’t really understand why you keep saying “you guys” want to win at all costs.
Do you think that those of us who write here aren’t interested in the truth about what’s going on in this country? You’re dead wrong.
You say I wrote a misleading post. What about the Journolist journalists who conspired to cover up stories that would hurt Obama?
Trust me. This story will not be covered like it should.
July 26th, 2010 at 8:06 am
wow, the usual 2-faced politicians at work again….and not too surprising that Wikileaks releases their documents 2 hours after this story – Coincidence?? i doubt it…thats what happens when 80% or higher of the media are libs/socialists…
July 26th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Shannon there is a group of you that parrot the same neocon conservatism in lockstep on every issue essential to completely deny anything Obama tries to do. And when those of us disagree or point out “errors” or “propaganda” the same group comes in and denies any culpability in that and calls us names and use to even bully us to shut us down. We want accurate facts to precede the debate or punditry as a manner of honor and integrity., No brown shirt propaganda. No constant anything Obama does is wrong. Its just too lame. I hold you to your post to at least do some basic fact checking and also some evaluation of the source before you try and sell us anything. If you can’t see this I can’t help you. Regarding others misdeeds with news and the facts, just don’t copy them but hold to a higher standard you can be proud of over simply winning. I would rather have the truth, than simply win. The truth is what shall set us free. And if you haven’t figured out by now any president is going to have a hard time walking on egg shells then your just on another planet. So while you can always drum up a piece of smudged white house crystal, you shouldn’t focus on that to simply do a “gotcha piece”. Frankly the afghanistan war is the big breaking news right now with very strong questions about how we, the US really run our wars, but you focus on one diplomatic mishandiling, most likely, and in isolation use that as a big cause. Frankly I can see how someone really thoughtful could make a far more insightful case regarding criticisms of Obama, but you guys pick the juvenile, name calling, and well ridiculous road. You don’t find writers of the financial times say, doing this.
July 26th, 2010 at 9:21 am
[...] Obama White House Backed Lockerbie Bomber Release » Right Pundits [...]
July 26th, 2010 at 9:41 am
@ Shannon
You think brian going to complain that Obama didn’t really expose himself at NetRoots like Andy’s story says?
July 26th, 2010 at 11:18 am
I think the Whitehouse should publish the letter sent to Ireland and then we all will know the truth!
July 26th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
“But since the Scots were giving him up no matter what (and I don’t blame Obama for that) the choice became Libyan prison or Libyan freedom. The Administration backed the latter. Why?”
This statement is wrong. It appears that the choices were Libyan prison or SCOTTISH freedom. Megrahi was given a hero’s welcome when he returned to Libya. Do you honestly believe that the Libyans would have kept him imprisoned?
July 26th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
[...] Obama White House Backed Lockerbie Bomber Release » Right Pundits [...]
July 26th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
@ Michelle
Telling the Scots to keep his @ss in jail or lose our f-ing phone number was also an option. I don’t see that anywhere in the letter though.
July 26th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Obama’s administration is really what’s known as a target rich environment.
You can debate each and every individual decision that is made by them and on the whole, miss the point. This administration has made so many screw ups that we are getting to the point of writing them off as absent while on the job.
The Lockerbie incident is just another drumbeat to go along with the Shirley Sherrod incident. This administration was hustled by a hustler again. Now we have a massive intelligence leak. The hits keep coming and I’m sorely put out to pay for continued bad decisions of this government.
July 26th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I do have to disagree with Shannon on one point.
Obama is a screw-up. He is not good at covering his hide. We know that he’s not very intelligent because he keeps getting involved in these gaffs.
He will just bowl them over on the “View”. It will give new meaning to the term “Boob Tube.”
July 28th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Let me quote the letter from the US Embassy to FMn Salmond with the caveat notwithstanding;
“…Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the U.S. position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.”
Strongly oppose? Strongly oppose?! Ship his @ss in a fifty gallon drum and fire it off the side of Niagra. This is called Obama p!ssing all over Reagan’s grave.
Let me continue;
“…it would be most appropriate for Megrahi to remain imprisoned for the entirety of his sentence. This was the understanding and expectation at the time arrangements were made for his trial in Scottish…”
That was in 1988. But for the caveat Reagan’s “appropriate arrangements.”
“..We recommend compassionate release in lieu of prisoner transfer.” – US EMBASSY, LONDON, July 2009