Based on the latest allegations about the release of the only person ever convicted of the Lockerbie jetliner bombing, compassion had nothing to do with setting free this “dying” scoundrel.
Correspondence reported by Britain's Sunday Telegraph suggests the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was linked to a $615 million arms deal with Libya.
Mr. al-Megrahi had been convicted in 2001 in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which four Southwestern Pennsylvanians died among the 270 victims. Supposedly suffering from terminal cancer, al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison in August 2009 and lived as a free man until his death in May 2012.
In response to the Telegraph's report, a spokesman for Tony Blair, Britain's ex-prime minister and later an envoy for the British government, said there was no quid pro quo for al-Megrahi's release. Yet there have been other allegations of various deals for al-Megrahi's release.
And he probably never would have been released if the U.S. had pressed Libya's late Moammar Gadhafi for answers.
Instead, in a perverse foreign policy “coup” after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration normalized relations with this unrepentant world thug. The Obama administration supported the rebels who ultimately killed Mr. Gadhafi. And on last year's anniversary of 9/11, terrorists stormed the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
So, where did the U.S. ever draw the line regarding the slaughter of innocents during an awful winter's night in 1988? It didn't.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- The theft epidemic: Simple safeguards
- The Box
- The Obama foreign policy ‘model’ imperils the world.
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes