Forum Thread

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,183 messages

Updated 6/9/2024 1:00:09 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,673 messages

Updated 6/13/2024 6:12:00 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,197 messages

Updated 6/10/2024 5:39:11 AM

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,171 messages

Updated 5/29/2024 10:51:34 PM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,170 messages

Updated 6/10/2024 6:29:37 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,261 messages

Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,977 messages

Updated 6/10/2024 6:30:23 PM

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Did Obama know...
Date:	8/31/2009 11:45:46 AM

about and approve the Scottish plans to release Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber? 'Morning Joe' says he would be 'shocked' if the White House had not been informed. Since Scarborough has received considerable praise on this forum, I'm assuming he's right.

URL: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/08/31/scarborough-obama-admin-must-have-signed-lockerbie-terrorist-relea

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Did Obama know...
Date:	8/31/2009 12:26:17 PM

No, he is only reasonable when he says something critical of Republicans. The rest of the time he is a right wing nut or whatever other pejorative they can dream up.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Did Obama know...
Date:	8/31/2009 3:02:31 PM

It would be highly unusual for the UK to do something like that without consultations with the US ahead of time. Normally, the UK would send the US a diplomatic note through our Embassy or the PM would pick up the phone and call the President. Having said that they may have advised us that this is what they were doing, not "consulting" with us. I'm sure if we knew about it, we would have objected, but that doesn't mean that they would have changed what they had decided to do.

But, keep in mind, the current PM of the UK has a "mandate" from the British people to break away from the dealings of the past, so maybe this is our new relationship with them. There could also be a shake up within the UK government.

Either way, it's not good.

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	Did Obama know...
Date:	8/31/2009 4:57:06 PM

I didn't see the clip, but I read the transcript ... and I have no problem with what Joe and his panel said. They are speculating ... What did they know? When did they know it? What did they do about it? All good questions.

I don't know the answers, but below is what the Obama administration says happened. The first source is a radio interview with Obama .. the next two are questions/answers from WH Press briefings.

MR. SMERCONISH: A bit off message. Today the Scots released the Lockerbie bomber due to -- actually maybe it is health care-related. He's got terminal cancer. Your take on this. A lot of folks very offended over a perceived lack of justice.
THE PRESIDENT: We have been in contact with the Scottish government, indicating that we objected to this. And we thought it was a mistake. We're now in contact with the Libyan government, and want to make sure that if in fact this transfer has taken place, that he's not welcomed back in some way, but instead should be under house arrest. We've also obviously been in contact with the families of the Pan Am victims, and indicated to them that we don't think this was appropriate.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Radio-Interview-of-the-President-by-Michael-Smerconish/

Robert, in light of the fact that the judges have accepted the Lockerbie bomber's request to allow him to drop his appeal against his conviction, which could mean that he might be released soon -- and Secretary Clinton and several senators have urged the judges not to release him. What official actions, if any, has the Obama administration considered at this point?
MR. GIBBS: It's the policy of this administration, as enunciated, as you've said, by Secretary of State Clinton, that this individual should serve out his term where he's serving it right now. That's the policy of this government.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-8/18/09/

Q Quickly on Lockerbie, the President said on Smerconish that -- I think he used the word "we" when he said called Libya and discussed the idea of putting this guy under house arrest when he gets out. Did he personally make that call, or who did make that --

MR. GIBBS: Our folks in Libya have discussed with the Libyan government exactly what the President said a minute ago -- one, that this individual ought the be treated -- well, first let me say this -- we oppose and deeply regret the decision that has been made for release. Our officials in Libya talked with the government and -- delivering two primary messages, as the President said: First, that this individual should be treated as he always ought to be, a convicted mass murderer that took part in a terrorist activity in December of 1988, that killed several hundred people, including almost 200 Americans. Secondly, we expressed our concern about the release, and believe that the Libyans should treat the individual as somebody who should be under house arrest. That was communicated, again, through American officials in Libya directly with the Libyan government.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-8/20/09/

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Did Obama know...
Date:	8/31/2009 5:31:47 PM

-Words! words! words!

-let me say ,"in other words" --the Brits, the Scots, and the Lybians could care less what this admnistraton thinks! This ladies and gentlemen is another clear example that we are no longer considered a global super power, and apparently, not even a regional super power.

-A global super power, or even a regional super power, is a nation that is able to use its elements of power (military, economic, political, and cultural) to influence other nations to act in keeping with the super power's interests, --or in the very least, not to act against those interests.

-So in this instance, we were not able to "influence" teh Brits not to act against our interests; 1)because, economically we can't provide them oil, -- because we can't (or won't) even provide ourselves with oil, --also economically, we are in debt to teh Chinese for umpteen trillion dollars and thus have little to offer our allies; 2) because militarily, military force does not lend itself to this issue, --but as a backdrop, we are snatching defeat from victory in the mideast, so even our military super power credentials are in question; 3) because politically, we can't run our own country well, as we continue in the recession while Europe is staring to pull out, --so why shold they listento our aadvice; and 4) because culturally, we are no longer thought of as the global engine of industry/science/culture as those mantles begin to shilft to asia.
- Yet, perhaps I read too much into this little international play, --however, when one thinks deeply on it, I believe it should cause us concern.

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	Gotta Say Yankee ...
Date:	8/31/2009 10:49:27 PM

I was surprised at the intensity of your post. I'd like to ask ... if McCain had been elected president ... do you think he could have stopped the release of the Lockerbie bomber? If this had happened in GW Bush's term .. .could he have stopped it? If it had happened during the Clinton administration .. could he have stopped it? My answer to all is No.

Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	Get a clue JAG....
Date:	8/31/2009 10:56:40 PM

Many in the world didn't like Bush 'cause they couldn't flip him off.......they had to respect his willingness to protect what he thought were American interests. All this lovey dovey stuff BHO is trying will not work.........he can be flipped off......without consequences.....

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	Get a clue JAG....
Date:	8/31/2009 11:29:44 PM

Sorry Rude ... but I don't understand your answer ... yes, I know you hate Obama ... but please answer my question .. do you think if McCain was president he could have stopped the release of the Lockerbie bomber? Could GW Bush? Could Bill Clinton? I say none of them could.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Why let him go?
Date:	9/1/2009 12:03:43 AM

JAG,
-You asked, would this have also happened under Bush, Clinton, etc. My answer is No!. Here's why I think it wouldn't have...
-The question is why did teh British government let him go? Was it in the Brits national interest to do so? --apparently Yes. Whas it in ours? --apparently No! Was it truely a humanitarian gesture for a sick man? --I doubt it; most Brits apparently think he should have rot in prison.
-Countries act in their own national interests. When doing something like this, a government has to run through a formal or informal checklist of teh impacts of such an act on its own political popularity at home, it's impact on its alliances, it's impact on its economy, etc.
-Letting this convicted terrorist go was certainly not popular at home. It certaily was not popular with us. And certainly, we couldn't do anything significant enough to exert "inluence" over the Brits not to do it.
-So I assume we need to find out and understand why teh British government really wanted to do it. From the stuff I read from people that ought to know, the reason was oil. The Brits need it, the Lybians offered them a deal that we apparently couldn't match. Thus, we are a nation, at least in this instance, without suffiecent influence over one of our closest allies. We are becoming weak in their eyes.
-SO what do they see when they look at us now? Here's my take: They see a US administration that is supposedly positioned to be in power for at least another 8-12 years. They probably believe that this US administration, based on Obama's recent trip to the mid-east and europe, wants to himself develop closer relationships with Arab countries. Thus the Brits probaly surmise that since the Brits don't have their own oil, and the US can't provide them with oil, and that the Russians keep screwing with Europe's gas sources, and that the US is positioning itself with closer ties with Lybia and the rest of teh mideast , then the Brits see all this as an opportunity for them to take care of themselves with little adverse pressure from the US.
-What does this mean for the future. It means in my mind that teh Brits and the rest of Europe will go it alone more often in striking up deals with the Arab world. This weakens teh historic ties within NATO and thereby weakens US influence within Europe and on Europe's dealing with the Arabs. Teh weakening of this half-century alliance system makes us less power in exerting our influences in many areas, to include economic. this makes it harder for us to come out of this recession.
-Now to answer your question above, could Bush have stopped it? Clinton? Reagan? My answer would be that I think it would have been very unlikely that this would have happened under Bush because Bush had such a close relationship with Tony Blair. During the Bush years, teh US and Britain were almost in lack step in dealing with teh Arab terrorists. I'd give it a 99% chance that it would not have happened. Further, I don't think it wuold have happened under Clinton either. Clinton led Europe through the Balkin war. Withouot Clinton, Europe would have seen an ethnis slaughter in teh Balkans, the like of which would have been second only to that seen of Jews in WWII. Clinton was well respected in Britain for that action. I think he would have been able to inluence the Brits not to do this. Reagan and Thatcher? ---need I even voice an opinion on that?

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	As Usual ... Great Post
Date:	9/1/2009 7:23:44 PM

Yankee ... you gave me several things to think about that I had not considered ... such as Clinton's influence in Europe vis-a-vis his Balkans policy ... I hadn't remembered Clinton having that much influence .. but perhaps I'm wrong ... I'll be off to research and fill in the blanks in my recollections.

My thoughts for my original post were more along the lines of the fact that, even though I think it is deplorable that this hijacker was released and returned to Libya ... the sad truth is that for most people, this event will be forgotten in a few weeks. Not for the families and friends of those lost over Lockerbie .. but for most other folks. Too me, that made it a much easier decision for the Scots/Brits ... than if it was a more wide-ranging decision like deployment of troops somewhere ... or treaties .. or sanctions, etc.

At any rate ... it is a sad, sad fact that, first, it took so long to convict someone for the Lockerbie bombing, second, that that person was released, and third, that his release is being celebrated in Libya. A sad event all the way around.

Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos