By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)
Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone
The above question has grown trite, but what did he know and when did he know it? About the Lockerbie bomber’s release to Libya, we mean. We are asking because there seems some doubt about earlier official statements that allegedly addressed the mystery. Now The Australian in an article by Jason Allardyce and Tony Allen-Mills, report on correspondence which appears fact-based:
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.
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.
The report intimates that the Scots took the “half-hearted” response as an indicator that there would be no resistance from our government. We wonder, at what point do deputy heads decide when to tell or not tell the President’s office on something as volatile as the release of a convicted killer of 270 passengers, crew members and others on the ground who died when debris from the destroyed aircraft fell on them.
The United States Senate, always the watchdog of small stature and late commencement, began an inquiry after it was announced that Megrahi’s physicians thought he might live for another ten years:
A source close to the Senate inquiry said: “The (LeBaron) letter is embarrassing for the US because it shows they were much less opposed to compassionate release than prisoner transfer.”
Last week, a succession of British politicians – including Mr MacAskill, Mr Salmond and former justice secretary Jack Straw – delivered a diplomatic snub to the senators by refusing to fly across the Atlantic to answer questions at the Senate’s hearing on Thursday (US time) about their role in Megrahi’s release.
This story also reveals that there was an oil deal for freedom between Libya, Great Britain and British Petroleum (BP.) The article also states that BP plans to drill off the coast of Libya in deep water, not withstanding the spill in the Gulf Coast. The rest of The Australian’s story can be read by clicking right here.
STORY TOLD EARLIER BY A BLOGGER
Last year (on September 6th) writing on the blog, American Thinker, Clarice Feldman wrote:
It seems that Obama is not going to get away with blaming the Brits for releasing the Lockerbie bomber. At least not if Downing Street can help it. The British say the White House and Secretary of State Clinton were fully informed of the decision and are deflecting blame onto the British now that the decision has proven to be unpopular.
(Of course, given how the American press hides stories, like Van Jones that reflect badly on the President, unless Americans seek out alternate media or read the foreign press the White House deflection will probably work.)
You can read the complete blog article here and you can read her update of today right here. Whatever you might choose to believe, it doesn’t look like there is any escape for Obama’s knowing exactly what transpired and why it transpired. Either the forgoing or he needs to scuttle a significant portion of his cabinet (see above.)
Related articles by Zemanta
- US preferred Megrahi be free than in Libyan jail: report (alternet.org)
- The Lockerbie Bomber: What’s the Story? (powerlineblog.com)
- Memo Shows U.S. Hedged on Bomber (foxnews.com)
- Scotland Asks U.S. to Declassify Lockerbie Documents (online.wsj.com)
- Obama White House Backed Lockerbie Bomber Release (rightpundits.com)