Obama Knew in Advance About Lockerbie Bomber's Release

[Yukon]

And who told you this....Glenn Beck, Rush Limpdick, or that media whore Ann Coulter?

Surprise! Obama knew in advance about the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who murdered 169 Americans, into the welcoming arms of terrorist dictator Moammar Qadhafi. Eric Holder, who has been involved in the release of terrorists before, talked with his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill about letting al-Megrahi go back in June.

Another very small surprise — the most transparent administration ever is blocking the release of documents on this subject:

The Scottish government told FOX News Tuesday that the U.S. government refuses to allow them to release details of any communication between Scotland and the U.S. over al-Megrahi's release.
By the way, Obama's close friend and spiritual mentor for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, once traveled to Libya with Louis Farrakhan to kiss Qadhafi's ring. The trip was in violation of a travel ban imposed by President Reagan due to Libya's terrorist activities, and was clearly intended to flaunt their allegiance with America's enemies. At the meeting, Farrakhan agreed to help Qadhafi fight America from the inside. He and his friends are doing a bang-up job of it.

The Brits may have released al-Megrahi as part of an oil deal, but our moonbat rulers don't believe in blood for oil. They just believe in blood — American blood, spilled by their terrorist allies.

If the suppressed documents ever come to light, they won't show that Comrade Obama tried very hard to prevent the release of a killer regarded by Qadhafi as a hero. Why would he? They are on the same side.


US warned of hero’s welcome for Pan Am 103 bomber - The Boston Globe
Gateway Pundit: Of Course-- Team Obama Knew of Lockerbie Bomber's Release Months Ago ...Update: White House Blocks Release of Document!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Of course...it's easy to keep up to speed with the short bus

So my argument represents that of the retard... which I suppose is possible... But when one examines the debate only to realize that you've demonstrated little means to compete with that argument... it doesn't serve your interests to advertise that argument as being the product of a retard.

So... are ya sure that's where ya want to go?

We're talking about speed here...now let's look at your debate.

First, strip out all the hysterical laughter and nonrelevant witticisms...and what do we have? Not much.

ROFLMNAO... Cute...

First off, you seem to forget that the UK is an independent nation - not an extension of U.S. sovereignty.

There's nothing in my position which reflects this... thus the inference is wholly yours and stands just as unfounded.

We can influence but not force our will upon them...which you seem to think is what should have been done...so...threat of sanctions....sever relations? Britain is a key ally so I seriously doubt it is in our country's interest to go that route over a dying terrorist.

All good, but irrelevant points... Without the blessings of the US Administration, there's little upside for Great Britain to reward an Islamic terrorists... If Hussein wanted to shut that down, he needed only to let it slip out PRIOR TO THE RELEASE, that such was on the table... the public outrage POST release, would havem PRIOR TO the release, have stopped the release. You'll note, no such 'leak' took place... thus it is a certainty that Hussein gave his blessing and then sought to relive himself of the responsibility by invoking the now historic flaccid rebuke.

Now...got any proof that Obama was complicit in this guys release or...is your only proof a notable lack of proof?

Yeah... it's noted directly above...

And may I be the first to congratulate you on this EPIC fail...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Seriously why does anyone respond to stupid fucking threads like this, letting these members of the Party of Hate define the debate???

Do you not see their overall strategy, to blanket the internet and the airwaves with utter bullshit, with the theory that some of it, when thrown, will stick?

If you see a moronic BS thread filled with lies and propaganda, like this one, DON'T RESPOND TO IT. Unless your response is to dismiss it out of hand.

The Debate defines itself, dumbass... By rejecting the false premises advanced by the left isn't "defining the debate" it is precluding you idiots from misrepresenting the issues, thus manipulating the debate.

That you are incapable of advancing a lucid, well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument does not represent a failure on the part of those who opposse you and your rancid anti-American drivel.

 

[Sinatra]

So my argument represents that of the retard... which I suppose is possible... But when one examines the debate only to realize that you've demonstrated little means to compete with that argument... it doesn't serve your interests to advertise that argument as being the product of a retard.

So... are ya sure that's where ya want to go?

We're talking about speed here...now let's look at your debate.

First, strip out all the hysterical laughter and nonrelevant witticisms...and what do we have? Not much.

ROFLMNAO... Cute...



There's nothing in my position which reflects this... thus the inference is wholly yours and stands just as unfounded.

We can influence but not force our will upon them...which you seem to think is what should have been done...so...threat of sanctions....sever relations? Britain is a key ally so I seriously doubt it is in our country's interest to go that route over a dying terrorist.

All good, but irrelevant points... Without the blessings of the US Administration, there's little upside for Great Britain to reward an Islamic terrorists... If Hussein wanted to shut that down, he needed only to let it slip out PRIOR TO THE RELEASE, that such was on the table... the public outrage POST release, would havem PRIOR TO the release, have stopped the release. You'll note, no such 'leak' took place... thus it is a certainty that Hussein gave his blessing and then sought to relive himself of the responsibility by invoking the now historic flaccid rebuke.

Now...got any proof that Obama was complicit in this guys release or...is your only proof a notable lack of proof?

Yeah... it's noted directly above...

And may I be the first to congratulate you on this EPIC fail...

Quite correct PI...

 

[Contumacious]

[ Without the blessings of the US Administration, there's little upside for Great Britain to reward an Islamic terrorists... .

"....those who have poked their noses into the Al-Megrahi affair, including both Scottish and American relatives of the Lockerbie victims, investigators close to the case, and well-informed observers like Eric Margolis, tend to report a smell of rat. Al-Megrahi has consistently maintained his innocence, claiming he was framed. And many contend that pressure for a conviction from the U.S. and British governments had more to do with the man’s sentencing than did solid evidence. "


.

 

[Coyote]

So my argument represents that of the retard... which I suppose is possible... But when one examines the debate only to realize that you've demonstrated little means to compete with that argument... it doesn't serve your interests to advertise that argument as being the product of a retard.

So... are ya sure that's where ya want to go?

We're talking about speed here...now let's look at your debate.

First, strip out all the hysterical laughter and nonrelevant witticisms...and what do we have? Not much.

ROFLMNAO... Cute...



There's nothing in my position which reflects this... thus the inference is wholly yours and stands just as unfounded.

We can influence but not force our will upon them...which you seem to think is what should have been done...so...threat of sanctions....sever relations? Britain is a key ally so I seriously doubt it is in our country's interest to go that route over a dying terrorist.

All good, but irrelevant points... Without the blessings of the US Administration, there's little upside for Great Britain to reward an Islamic terrorists...

Sure there is. The life of a single dying terrorist isn't worth a diplomatic upheaval - that's simple pragmatism. Britain knows it. We know it. So though we can vociferously protest - we really can't do much else without paying a price that simply isn't worth it.

If Hussein wanted to shut that down, he needed only to let it slip out PRIOR TO THE RELEASE, that such was on the table... the public outrage POST release, would havem PRIOR TO the release, have stopped the release. You'll note, no such 'leak' took place... thus it is a certainty that Hussein gave his blessing and then sought to relive himself of the responsibility by invoking the now historic flaccid rebuke.

While that sounds fine and dandy on paper, it doesn't work so smoothly in real international life. Great way to piss off an ally we're working close with on a lot of fronts on terrorism. (psst: Obama doesn't seem to be as politically leaky as old Bush was - the Bush administration must have had stock in Depends)

You are also committing a logical fallacy faux pas here with cause and effect.

No leak took place therefore Obama approved the action.

Think about it.

Now...got any proof that Obama was complicit in this guys release or...is your only proof a notable lack of proof?

Yeah... it's noted directly above...

And may I be the first to congratulate you on this EPIC fail...

[/quote]

Premature congratulations, like premature ejaculations are often missplaced.

Keep trying though - you know I love ya deep down inside....somewhere

 

[Sinatra]

If proven the Obama White House knew of this release beforehand and was impotent in directing pressure to halt it - they will face yet another firestorm of complaint - and rightfully so...

 

[Yukon]

Obama was responsible for the Watergate break-in too..................