The Poojer Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 just putting it here to pique peoples interest before it moves and gets buried in the PPP board last month the admiistration was surprised by the release.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 just putting it here to pique peoples interest before it moves and gets buried in the PPP board last month the admiistration was surprised by the release.... Already there btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 Where? this isn't a rehash of whats been said since last August, this was just 'reported'....and unless someone is disguising the thread title very well, i do not see it... Already there btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 my bad, its buried as the last post in a multi page thread...sorry Already there btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! To think that the bungling fool George Bush was behind this turd's release. What? Oh, never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Well it should be interesting to see how our ultra conservative friends react to this. This will be very, very funny I think. (Grabbing Popcorn and a soda.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! To think that the bungling fool George Bush was behind this turd's release. What? Oh, never mind. Where in the article does it say that Obama was behind his release? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 funny the difference....anything the last administration allegedly did fell squarely on Bush...this administration is alleged to have done something and the 'figure head' of the administration gets a pass..... Where in the article does it say that Obama was behind his release? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 yeah its gonna be hilarious....several hundred innocent people with ties to my hometown were brutally blown up allegedly by a guy who was recently released on compassionate grounds and had allegedly some sort of support from the current administration....this is gonna be a rip roaring riot...and trust me, if this was a different administration i would as pissed as i am right now "....Last week, President Barack Obama told a White House press conference that the US had been ''surprised, disappointed and angry'' about Megrahi being released. ...." Well it should be interesting to see how our ultra conservative friends react to this. This will be very, very funny I think. (Grabbing Popcorn and a soda.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 funny the difference....anything the last administration allegedly did fell squarely on Bush...this administration is alleged to have done something and the 'figure head' of the administration gets a pass..... According to the article all the administration did is say that if they were going to release him (they were against his release) they'd prefer it be done on a humanitarian grounds. I don't see what the problem is. They never said they wanted him released, at least according to this article. There are people here who think it's perfectly ok for BP to get involved in his transfer but I suspect many of them will criticize Obama for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 actually it says they would have preferred he be released to scotland rather than to a libyan prison(if i am reading it correctly)....still i have to quote, yet again.... "....Last week, President Barack Obama told a White House press conference that the US had been ''surprised, disappointed and angry'' about Megrahi being released. ...." According to the article all the administration did is say that if they were going to release him (they were against his release) they'd prefer it be done on a humanitarian grounds. I don't see what the problem is. They never said they wanted him released, at least according to this article. There are people here who think it's perfectly ok for BP to get involved in his transfer but I suspect many of them will criticize Obama for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 yeah its gonna be hilarious....several hundred innocent people with ties to my hometown were brutally blown up allegedly by a guy who was recently released on compassionate grounds and had allegedly some sort of support from the current administration....this is gonna be a rip roaring riot...and trust me, if this was a different administration i would as pissed as i am right now I agree with you. His release disgusts me but the article YOU linked says they were always against his release. I want to see what those who defend BP on this issue have to say about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 26, 2010 Author Share Posted July 26, 2010 i guess i wasn't reading it correctly...still the deniability(sp) by the administration is maddening actually it says they would have preferred he be released to scotland rather than to a libyan prison(if i am reading it correctly)....still i have to quote, yet again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 actually it says they would have preferred he be released to scotland rather than to a libyan prison(if i am reading it correctly)....still i have to quote, yet again.... Speaking to Sky News today, Mr Salmond said: ''I think a fair description of the American Government's position is that they didn't want al-Megrahi to be released. ''However, if he was to be released, they thought it was far preferable for compassionate release as opposed to the prisoner transfer agreement.'' BBM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Where in the article does it say that Obama was behind his release? Dig a little deeper. 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. Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted. The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments. Yep. They know how to stand their ground on principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 i guess i wasn't reading it correctly...still the deniability(sp) by the administration is maddening This is the first time I've heard about this so I don't know all of the background but they could still have known about his release and yet be surprised that the British Government went through with it. It's semantics but it's not a huge sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Dig a little deeper. 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. Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted. The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments. Yep. They know how to stand their ground on principle. Ok, where does it say Obama was behind his release? Read again. The Obama administration was against the release of the prisoner at all, but if he was going to be released anyway they would rather seen it done for a compassionate reason. I want to see those who criticize Obama for expressing an opinion on what type of release it should be, even though he was dead set against it, rationalize their support of BP trying to grease the wheels of his release. Link Days after Britain and Libya concluded the transfer agreement, Libya and BP signed a deal the company called "the single biggest exploration financial commitment an international energy company has ever made to Libya." But Britain and BP have denied that Megrahi's release had any part of the negotiations. "It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the UK government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya," BP spokesman Toby Odone said Monday. "Like many others we were aware that a delay might have negative consequences for UK commercial interests, including ratification of BP's exploration agreement. "However, we did not express a view about the specific form of the agreement, which was a matter for the UK and Libyan governments, or make representations over the al Megrahi case, which was solely a matter for the Scottish Executive and not for the UK government." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Ok, where does it say Obama was behind his release? Read again. The Obama administration was against the release of the prisoner at all, but if he was going to be released anyway they would rather seen it done for a compassionate reason. I want to see those who criticize Obama for expressing an opinion on what type of release it should be, even though he was dead set against it, rationalize their support of BP trying to grease the wheels of his release. Link Days after Britain and Libya concluded the transfer agreement, Libya and BP signed a deal the company called "the single biggest exploration financial commitment an international energy company has ever made to Libya." But Britain and BP have denied that Megrahi's release had any part of the negotiations. "It is a matter of public record that in late 2007 BP discussed with the UK government our concern at the slow progress in concluding a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya," BP spokesman Toby Odone said Monday. "Like many others we were aware that a delay might have negative consequences for UK commercial interests, including ratification of BP's exploration agreement. "However, we did not express a view about the specific form of the agreement, which was a matter for the UK and Libyan governments, or make representations over the al Megrahi case, which was solely a matter for the Scottish Executive and not for the UK government." Symantecs do not help if your relative was killed over Lockerbie. Obama basically said: Please don't release him wink a wink wink wink...wink wink, but when you do, get some brownie points by making it seem like we are all Los Gatos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Dig a little deeper. 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. Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted. The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments. Yep. They know how to stand their ground on principle. Terminal cancer ehh?? The guy is alive and well. BP has their land for the oil rigs and the US sold out their people for oil....again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Dig a little deeper. 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. Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted. The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments. Yep. They know how to stand their ground on principle. I'm curious why you didn't include this context as well: "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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts