Barack Obama Lockerbie Bomber: US Wanted Abdelbaset Sent to Libya but Not Jailed

We've mused about this. How involved was the White House in Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber's release from the Scottish prison? And was their involvement tied to the campaign donations from BP to Obama? A letter obtained by the UK Sunday Times reports to show that Obama preferred Abdelbaset be sent home to Libya, but not imprisoned there, and a letter from the US Embassy Deputy Head in London, Richard LeBaron has surfaced.

Pan Am 103 - Abdelbaset The Lockerbie Bomber

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been investigating how Abdelbaset was released from the Scottish prison on compassionate grounds, sent home to Libya to die within three months, and is still alive one year later. At the time, it seemed the U.S. did not heartily oppose the release. I remember Obama telling Libya to quash any idea of a big reunion celebration on camera when the bomber arrived home. Of course the cameras rolled and the celebration was big.

Obama received a total of $77,051 leading up to his presidential race in November 2008, millions more went to Democrats. In the summer of 2008, BP was desperately trying to find a way to get their drilling operation off of Libya's coast operating. It appears Libya was holding those leases hostage to obtain Abdelbaset's freedom. By August, whatever deals were cut, the bomber was released and sent home. Rumors were ripe that Libya paid Scottish doctors to issue a terminal cancer diagnosis.

The Australian says the Deputy Head of the US Embassy in London, Richard LeBaron,  rendered the letter to the Scots from Obama one week before Abdelbast's release:

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.

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.

The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."...

The US administration lobbied the Scottish government more strongly against sending Megrahi home, under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by the British and Libyan governments, in a deal now known to have been linked to a pound stg. 550 million oil contract for BP.

Why would the White House strongly oppose Abdelbaset's imprisonment in Libya? The letter does say that Obama preferred leaving him in prison in Scotland, but if that was not going to happen, preferred the bomber go to his happy home in Libya and not to prison. It doesn't make any sense unless we see the donations going to Obama as conditional.

The Lockerbie bombing, also known as Pan Am 103, killed 190 Americans, 35 of whom were students of Syracuse University, 4 from Colgate University, 4 from Brown University, 2 from Seton Hill University and 2 from State University of New York at Oswego and 1 from Hampshire College. Ten on the flight were residents of Long Island. Justice for the 243 aboard and the 11 dead on the ground was stolen for a BP oil lease, some political donations and a favor to an Islamic nation. Just a few strong words from the Citizen President of the World, Barack Obama, saying Abdelbaset must not be realeased, would have kept him in prison. Obama hates drilling, but he loves campaign money, and he is a great respecter of Islam. What a terrible, terrible story.

Thanks to David Lemon for the heads up on this latest revelation.

Related and Background

Bay of Rigs Scandal Leaking: Dispersants and Where the Money Is.

Did BP Secure Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi Release: States Investigate Lockerbie Bomber

Saif al-Islam is Muammar Ghaddaffis Son Megrahi Lockerbie Bomber Release Deal?


US Lockerbie Bribes? US Lockerbie Payments? Lockerbie Witnesses Paid by US?

NOAA Obama: Obama waited too long: US Didn't Have a Fire Boom

A former official of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says the Obama administration didn't act quickly enough to institute the burn plan that would have burned-off the oil in the earliest stages and before it oil slick drifted closer to land - and that's not the only problem. When they did begin the burn, it was with the wrong wind conditions. Mammoth screw-up! To add to the embarrassing situation, we had to try to borrow burn equipment from other countries - "for a few days."

Deepwater Horizon Oil Slick

Washington Examiner - Beltway Confidential:

[Ron] Gouget said when he was at NOAA the agency created a plan that required burning off an oil spill in the region in its earliest state, if the prevailing winds would not push the smoke and soot from the operation inland. The plan is still in effect, but was not activated last week by NOAA.

"They had pre-approval. The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away instead of waiting tend days to get permission," Gouget told the Register. "If you read the pre-approval plan, it speaks about Grand Isle, where the spill is. When the wind is blowing offshore out of the north, you have preapproval to burn in that region. If the wind is coming onshore, like it is now, you can't burn at Grand Isle. They waited to do the test burn until the wind started coming onshore.

"This whole thing has been a daily strip tease. At first they thought it was just the diesel, then they said the well wasn't leaking. It's unfortunate they didn't get the burning going right away. They could have gotten 90 percent of the oil before it spread."

 Al.com (Alabama.com) says the "federal government" didn't have "a single fire boom on hand." The "fire boom" is the piece of equipment that actually burns the oil:

When federal officials called, Elastec/American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said...."

At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U.S. government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said.

A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up at 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, said Bohleber. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore.

Incompetence or a plan? What better opportunity for a Liberal administration to sabotage offshore drilling, once and for all.

DrillGate: Public Wants Drilling by 2-1 Ratio: Obama Admin Hides Deceives Manipulates Delays

Newt Gingrich's American Solutions has revealed our newest disgrace - DrillGate. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) we learn that the public is favorable to offshore drilling, as laid out by the Bush administration, by a 2-1 ratio. This has put the Obama administration in the awkward position (or maybe it's business as usual) of hiding, deceiving and manipulating analysis of comments from American citizens. Now, a new comment period has been announced - 45 days of additional delay.

Here's the story. Months passed. Months after the public commenting period ended in September 2009, nothing was forthcoming from Salazar or the White House. Through the FOIA, American Solutions found 530,000 comments submitted showing overwhelming support for GW Bush's five-year plan, which was on Obama's desk when he moved into the Oval Office. The federally-mandated commenting period was already underway at that time,  Flashback: "Drill baby! Drill!"

When Obama ascended to the Oval Office, the commenting period was extended to September 2009. An unnecessary delay, according to many. Perhaps the plan was to get ACORN online, filling out comments. Whatever...it didn't work.

Vince Haley at BigGovernment describes an email obtained through the FOIA showing the dishonest attempt to manage the public's very positive opinion of offshore drilling, by an administration not nearly as positive toward drilling as they wanted us to believe. This also  gave Salazar a way to avoid publicly acknowledging the public's clear support for drilling.  In fact, a spokeswoman for Liz Birnbaum said the agency had not completed "analyzing" the comments, although she acknowledge the results were favorable by a 2-1 ration. Translation: the agency had not completed manipulation of the data.

In an email dated October 27, 2009, Liz Birnbaum, director of the Minerals Management Service, informs other Interior officials that a preliminary tabulation of the results of the comment period had not yet gone to Secretary Salazar, adding “[s]o the Secretary can honestly say in response to any questions that he’s [SIC] has not yet seen the analysis of the comments – staff is still working on it. I did, however, confirm to him the 2-1 split that these guys [at American Solutions] are emphasizing.”

But this administration is never without "the next move." In January 2010, Salazar announced another 45-day comment period on a "study of how drilling would affect the ocean floor" off the Atlantic coastline. It is not clear who the commenters will be. You and I probably know little about the ocean floor, but to say experts in the field of oceanography know little, is unbelievable to me. But wait, this article says the 45-days are, indeed, for the public "to weigh in on "seismic exploration" in their area. What was the 2009 comment period for? Another orchestrated ACORN opportunity.

We don't see this as a bad thing," said Nicolette Nye, spokeswoman for the National Ocean Industries Association, which promotes offshore drilling. "We're pleased the new administration is continuing with the … process."

Energy companies are lined up to begin seismic research in the Atlantic coastline, to indicate the possibility of oil and gas under the ocean's floor, but the rumblings of dangers to marine life are already ramping up.

The Bush plan, which had the support of 68% of Americans, would have allowed drilling on up to 300 million acres off US coastlines and would have taken effect in mid-2010. Salazar is quoted as saying it "was a headlong rush of the worst kind." There is no doubt that while Birnbaum protected Salazar from the full data in writing, he knew and he enabled the stall full disclosure, promised by the President.

Vince Haley points out the "extraordinary benefits" of jobs that could be created, "without federal spending," at a time when our Nation is facing the highest unemployment in decades, with no bright outlook for changing the situation, and with another dishonest stimulus, verified by the previous stimulus failure, to create jobs.

The Freedom of Information Act protects citizens from their government's secrets, but when the government fails to disclose, and forces the public to file an FOI request, those responsible should be held accountable. The people should never have to d-r-a-g public data from elected officials.