Perhaps the most astonishing thing about the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi has been the tepid reaction of President Obama and his administration. My new National Post column speculates on two reasons that might explain the president’s mildness: (1) some kind of secret deal with the Libyans; (2) that Obama has accepted the theory advanced by some intelligence experts that the attack was the work of Iran, not Libya.
Of course, there’s a more likely explanation for the lack of outcry: this administration’s lack of moral center on terrorism. Whether it is his gentle reproofs of Ahmadinejad or his readiness to shake hands with Hugo Chavez, Barack Obama just does not get all that excited about international bad actors. Not that the president never gets angry. He can get plenty angry over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates or Israeli settlements. Lockerbie: not so much.
Back in the days when French waiters wrote out the bill by hand, my father would scrutinize his restaurant checks and grumble: “If they were just bad at math, half the mistakes would be in my favor.” Likewise, Obama’s and his administration’s misstatements always seem to err in the same direction: to excuse and minimize. It’s happened again, and by now it’s beginning to look like a trend.
18 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Aug 22, 2009 at 10:29 am
“Of course, there’s a more likely explanation for the lack of outcry: this administration’s lack of moral center on terrorism. ”
……..Must be the same lack of moral center that caused the Bush administration to block legal suits by the families of Lockerbie victims against the Libyan government because they had ACTUALLY made a secret deal with Ghaddaffi. Now that WAS a total outrage. ……..Why don’t you check out the SoS statement on the current matter….. In reality there’s not much else we can do since it was a decision not even taken by the British govt but by the devolved Scottish legal and parliamentary system.
2 ottovbvs // Aug 22, 2009 at 10:42 am
……..Extract from a summary of the background to attempted litigation against the Libyan govt by US families of Lockerbie victims:
“As a result, President Bush signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government’s immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, the White House said. [72] U.S. State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, called the move a “laudable milestone … clearing the way for a continued and expanding U.S.-Libyan partnership.”[73]”
……..Your outrage as ever David is highly selective……this guy that’s been released was a minor player……his bosses who gave the orders receive a get out of jail free card courtesy GWB
3 sinz54 // Aug 22, 2009 at 12:27 pm
It is known that Obama and Hillary had been working for months to persuade the Brits to block al Megrahi ’s release.
Time Magazine and Chatham House are suggesting that the reason the Brits did not do so, is that they and the rest of Western Europe have their tongues thirsting for Libyan oil and natural gas. Libya also wants to modernize its armed forces, and European companies are ready to bid:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918148,00.html
If true, then the real culprit here isn’t Obama. The real culprit here is the West’s continued dependence on oil and natural gas from unsavory regimes.
Maybe Obama and Canadian PM Harper should have promised Britain lots more natural gas. That argument might have resonated.
4 ottovbvs // Aug 22, 2009 at 12:37 pm
sinz54 // Aug 22, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“If true, then the real culprit here isn’t Obama. The real culprit here is the West’s continued dependence on oil and natural gas from unsavory regimes.”
………Why don’t you read some background on this……this decision wasn’t one made by or that could even be blocked by the British govt…..it was a decision made within the Scottish legal system which is quite separate and independant from that operating in the rest of the UK and it was then endorsed by justice minister of the devolved Scottish parliament……..I’m quite sure the motives you ascribe to the decision applied to the Bush admin’s decision……much less likely in this case however
5 The Quality Of Mercy, Strained Or Not Strained, Is Debated « Around The Sphere // Aug 22, 2009 at 1:36 pm
[...] David Frum at New Majority [...]
6 oldgal // Aug 22, 2009 at 1:46 pm
What would be gained other than contention with Scotland?
7 gopsteve // Aug 22, 2009 at 4:08 pm
You Obama supporters are something else.
Your only defense of him always starts like “Well, what about when Bush…”
8 jreb // Aug 22, 2009 at 5:33 pm
ottovbvs // Aug 22, 2009 at 10:29 am
“Must be the same lack of moral center that caused the Bush administration to block legal suits by the families of Lockerbie victims against the Libyan government because they had ACTUALLY made a secret deal with Ghaddaffi.”
ottovbvs // Aug 22, 2009 at 10:42 am
“As a result, President Bush signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government’s immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, the White House said.”
The “Bush did it” whine “ottovbvs” keeps repeating, refers to the Libyan Claims Resolution Act S.3370. The Libyan Claims Resolution Act (sponsored by then Sen Joe Biden) creates a fund to compensate the victims, and grants Libya immunity from terror-related lawsuits. Under the arrangement, the country would not accept responsibility for the acts but would provide the money to compensate the victims. The bill will allow the Lockerbie and La Belle victims, who already have settlements with Libya, to recover the full amount they’re owed. Libya has paid the 268 families involved in the Pan Am settlement $US8m (£4,065,000) each but it owes them $US2m (£1,016,200) more.
9 sinz54 // Aug 22, 2009 at 8:36 pm
ottovbs: Not even the British newspapers, not the Times of London or even the left-wing Guardian, are buying the story that the Justice Ministry did this entirely on their own without pressure from the British authorities. Neither are Time Magazine nor the NY Times–and neither of them were ever fans of Bush.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Justice Secretary MacAskill if he could name any prior case in Scotland where a convicted murderer sentenced to life imprisonment but who had a terminal illness was allowed to be released. MacAskill couldn’t name any–including one noteworthy case, a murderer who had serious heart disease recently who asked to be released, but who was nevertheless confined to prison till the murderer died of a heart attack there.
Finally, Qaddafi’s son poured salt in the wound by “thanking” the British government for interceding to get the terrorist released.
David Cameron has demanded a full accounting from PM Brown.
10 Patterico’s Pontifications » Gordon Brown’s Friend, Libya’s Col. Gaddafi (Updated: Obama’s Tepid Response) // Aug 22, 2009 at 9:54 pm
[...] David Frum says the Obama’s mild response to al-Megrahi’s release is another example of his [...]
11 dacookson // Aug 23, 2009 at 8:30 am
I certainly can’t raise any outrage. Who can doubt that the US wouldn’t have done the same if the roles had been reversed. It’s not as if it has a good track record of taking into account the sensitivities of its allies when making decisions in its national interest. Even this so-called progressive administration threatened to withdraw intelligence co-operation if the UK went ahead with a torture investigation which might have embarrassed it. It looks like the man’s conviction was unsafe for a start and that’s supposed to matter in the legal system. If Americans are offended so what? Do its allies have to endure these neverending petulant and vengeful reactions every time a decision is made which might well be right but embarrasses or ‘offends’ the US. What has the UK got out of its political relationship with the US anyway in recent years? The opportunity to die in its useless and immoral wars? A nice little banking crisis in return for bowing to every economic policy that comes their way. The UK has payed off its war debt, so thank you very much but mind your own two-faced business.
12 Rel // Aug 23, 2009 at 11:37 am
Wasn’t this conviction pretty contentious, following a trial riddled with questionable testimony and evidence? Guilty or not, perhaps the odds were quite good that al Megrahi was going to be acquitted on appeal. If so, the choice was not: (a) Let him rot in jail vs. (b) release him on “compassionate” grounds, but rather (a) release him as a wrongly-accused martyr vs. (b) release him on “compassionate” grounds. I don’t know that this is the case, but if this is the real back-story then the actions of all involved are much more comprehensible.
13 ottovbvs // Aug 23, 2009 at 1:59 pm
jreb // Aug 22, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“The “Bush did it” whine “ottovbvs” keeps repeating”
……Pathetic as ever in defense of their hero……..So the “whining” families of the Lockerbie victims were all completely happy with this and did not wish to continue pursuing legal action against the Libyan govt from which they were blocked by Bush administration……….Is that correct?
14 ottovbvs // Aug 23, 2009 at 2:03 pm
sinz54 // Aug 22, 2009 at 8:36 pm
“ottovbs: Not even the British newspapers, not the Times of London”
………So we now believe every word we read in the newspapers do we…….According to the scots they made the decision………..as McCaskill confirmed…..The Times of London btw is a Murdoch owned very anti govt newspaper
15 jreb // Aug 23, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Ottovbvs, you continue to try to lambaste Republicans and Bush in particular in every comment you make. Yet you conveniently choose to ignore the Democrats role such as in the Libyan Reclamation Act sponsored by Vice President Joe Biden (then Senator Joe Biden) and passed in both houses by unanimous consent (Democrat controlled House of Representatives at the time and with Barack Obama as a US Senator).
16 dacookson // Aug 23, 2009 at 3:47 pm
In the UK many families of the bereaved have looked at the evidence and supported the decision. They have been campaigning for years to try and find out more about what happened and thought that an appeal by Megrahi would help bring this about. Everyone knows there was a quid pro quo but so what? The Home Secretary reversed a decision recently to release high profile prisoner Ronnie Biggs on similar compassionate grounds after he’d previously adamantly refused to do so, presumably in anticipation of this case. Clearly this has been in the pipeline for a while. At then end of the day a man with an unsafe conviction has been released, what’s more without going through the embarrasment of exposing the holes in the case. The Lockerbie incident was almost certainly in retaliation for the US shooting down the Iranian passenger jet during the first gulf war but I guess the US government don’t want to remind people about that. The interesting fact about this is that American families of the deceased seem to be outraged whereas British families aren’t, presumably because the Brits are more familiar with the case and apparently better able to think for themselves. It just shows the American tendency towards blind faith. Here’s a story in The Mail. Megrahi was a pawn and almost certainly a scapegoat who at least has the chance to die with some dignity.
17 joedee1969 // Aug 24, 2009 at 8:44 am
This is a hard hitting piece today. Check it out:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/08/democrat-all-that-power-wasted/
18 Matthew Yglesias » The “No Drama” Foreign Policy // Aug 24, 2009 at 3:13 pm
[...] release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi. But David Frum’s post on the matter reminds me of one of the things I most appreciate about Barack Obama’s approach to foreign [...]
You must log in to post a comment.