posted July 29, 2010 11:01 AM         

Repeat a lie often enough and lots of people will begin to believe it. It's called the "Big Lie Technique".

Remember these?

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes" (September 12, 2008, Dover, NH)

I will not sign any legislation which contains a single earmark.

No lobbyist can work in my administration.

We had to do TARP to save the world from a financial collapse.

Under O'BomberCare your health insurance costs will go down and quality of care will go up.

Under the O'Bomber Financial Regulations Bill there will be no more bailouts of banks or other financial institutions. Too big to fail has been conquered.

So naturally, when the Scottish authorities released the Lockerbie Bomber....on "Compassionate grounds"...

O'Bomber was SURPRISED, disappointed and angry....so he said.

But wait, that's just another O'Bomber lie of the day. Though O'Bomber attempted to keep the correspondence between the O'Bomber administration and British and Scottish authorities secret, the truth got out.

O'Bomber gave the green light for the release of the Lockerbie Bomber to the Scottish authorities...and the British.

Not only did O'Bomber green light the bombers release; O'Bomber wanted him released to live in Scotland. He didn't want the Lockerbie Bomber transferred to Libya to serve out his remaining sentence in a Libyan prison.

Got it? O'Bomber wanted the Lockerbie Bomber released to live out his life free among Scottish citizens...some of whom had relatives and friends killed when the bomber blew up Pan American flight 103 and killed 270 people...many of them Americans.

Like cockroaches, the best practice to combat the "Big Lie" is to shine a bright light on them.

Now, the back story on this terrorist bomber's release.

The demoscat Congress was so incensed they opened an investigation into the BP connection to the release of the terrorist bomber in an attempt to link a BP oil deal with Libya as the cause. After all, O'Bomber was "SURPRISED" when the bomber was released so there must have been some pressure brought to bear by someone to make it happen.

Guess what! When the secret correspondence between the O'Bomber administration and Scottish and British authorities came to light....the demoscats closed their Congressional hearings in a flash.

How about that? O'Bomber even lied to his Socialist pals in the Congress about the part he played to get the Lockerbie Bomber released. But, like most lies, the truth comes out and usually at the worst possible time...for the liar.

posted July 29, 2010 11:11 AM         

How are they going to hush this one up?

Just 12 days ago Senate Democrats were demanding an investigation into the efforts foreign oil giant BP may have made to get the Lockerbie Bomber (responsible for the deaths of 270 persons after Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky over Scotland) released from Scottish jail and returned to Libya. Megrahi was released last year after Scottish officials came to the erroneous conclusion that his terminal prostate cancer left him with only a few months to live. He’s outlived their dire predictions for over a year and a Libyan doctor advises that he may live for another ten years.

The issue of convicted terrorist Megrahi’s release is so controversial that it even came up in a White House meeting with President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron. During the press conference, Obama said this:

OBAMA: [A]ll of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed, and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber. And my administration expressed very clearly our objections prior to the decision being made and subsequent to the decision being made. So we welcome any additional information that will give us insights and a better understanding of why the decision was made.

“Surprised, disappointed and angry” and “expressed very clearly our objections prior to the decision being made and subsequent to the decision being made.”

Really?

So, when the U.S. Congress called on the Scottish government to release letters regarding the release of Megrahi, why has the Obama Administration refused to release the letter it sent via our embassy in London?

Perhaps it is because the letter reveals that the Obama Administration was prepared to look the other way if Scotland choose to release Megrahi? While their position was that they prefer Megrahi to be released and live in Scotland, they “strongly opposed” a prison transfer of the bomber to Libya which would have kept him in jail. In the end, Megrahi was sent as a free man back to Libya.

From the embassy letter:

“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 Australian reports that “Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as “half-hearted” and a sign it would be accepted.”

Ed Morrisey sums up the current controversy this way:

The letter did not give a green light to Megrahi’s parole to Libya. Nevertheless, it shows the kind of ineptitude that has plagued the Obama administration’s diplomacy from the “reset button” with Russia to this day. LeBaron’s note was a clear signal to Scotland that the US had lost most of its interest in Megrahi; recall that the US had insisted originally that any parole must include extradition to the US. The Scottish government must have presumed that we would not strenuously object to their release of Megrahi to the Libyans after LeBaron failed to raise that point and demand Megrahi’s extradition.

Also, it shows that the Obama administration lied about being surprised by Megrahi’s release. They knew it was coming, and while they may have been surprised that he went to Libya, the White House knew Scotland was going to spring Megrahi one way or the other.

posted July 29, 2010 11:32 AM         

U.S. Senate postpones BP-Lockerbie hearing
Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:11am IST
By Susan Cornwell

(Reuters) - U.S. senators postponed a hearing on whether British oil giant BP Plc(BP.N)(BP.N) influenced the release of the Lockerbie bomber, saying on Tuesday key witnesses had "stonewalled" the investigation by refusing to appear.

**note** Actually, O'Bomber stiffed the Senators by refusing to release the secret correspondence between the O'Bomber administration and British and Scottish officials. European officials are under no obligation whatsoever to appear before any hearing called by the Congress of the United States. But...US officials and correspondence...letters, emails and other communications can be subpoenaed...and should be...if it's the truth you're look for.**

Senator Robert Menendez announced the postponement of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing set for Thursday and said it would be rescheduled "in the near future."

U.S. anger over the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has renewed interest in the details of last year's release by Scottish authorities of Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Most of the 270 people killed were Americans. The Senate panel wants to know if BP had influence in the bomber's release as it pursued business interests in Libya.

Menendez said the Senate committee had called two Scottish officials, former British Justice Secretary Jack Straw and two BP executives -- including departing chief executive Tony Hayward -- but all had declined to testify.

"It is utterly disappointing and I think pretty outrageous that none of these key witnesses will cooperate with our request to answer questions before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They have stonewalled," Menendez told reporters.

"It is a game of diplomatic tennis that is worthy of Wimbledon but not worthy on behalf of the lives of the families who still have to deal with this terrorist act and the consequences of the lost loved ones."

He said the panel would conduct a longer-term investigation of the release of the Lockerbie bomber, noting the Scottish government did offer to provide answers to further questions.

"We appreciate that and we will take them up on their offer," he said.

As a rule, Senate panels cannot subpoena foreign nationals to compel them to appear, Menendez said. But the committee was examining whether it could use subpoena power in the case of a British citizen like Hayward because he is part of a company doing business in the United States.

BP has offered to send another representative, the head of the company's UK operations, Peter Mather, an aide to Menendez said earlier. But the aide said there was no indication Mather had been in communication with Libya about the 2007 exploration and production deal BP signed with Tripoli.

The Scottish government has denied it had any contact with BP before deciding to free the Lockerbie bomber last year.

BP has said it had expressed concerns and lobbied the British government about the slow progress in resolving a different prisoner transfer agreement with Libya in 2007.

posted July 29, 2010 11:34 AM         

you have supplied one tiny piece of the letter out of its context for all the accusations. and even that piece says IF the scottish decide they are going ahead with the release...nothing about agreeing with said release...

posted July 31, 2010 10:15 AM         

At least have the common sense to point out where I went wrong...a little proof would help your cause...rather than just making a broad general statement.

I can prove O'Bomber is a lying leftist. I have proved O'Bomber is a lying leftist. I proved O'Bomber is a lying leftist right here and I've proved it over and over and over.

This one is more than enough to blow your dingy out of the water.

"I will not sign any legislation which contains a single earmark."..Barack Hussein O'Bomber

The Porkulus Bill...aka the Stimulus Bill contained more than 9,000 earmarks...and Barack Hussein O'Bomber signed the Porkulus Bill into law.

The big lie...

O'Bomber was SURPRISED, disappointed and angry when the Lockerbie Bomber was released from prison in Scotland.

O'Bomber was NOT surprised when the Lockerbie Bomber was released. O'Bomber had been in contact with the Scottish and British authorities prior to the terrorists release and had even suggested he be released to wander around free among Scottish citizens.

From the secret correspondence between the O'Bomber administration and our European pals who were in the process of coming to a decision to release the terrorist bomber:

"“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.”"

Now katatonic, can you tell me why Barack Hussein O'Bomber would oppose the terrorist bomber Megrahi being sent to Libya to serve out his sentence....AND PREFER HIS RELEASE ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS?

This guy killed 270 people when he blew up Pan Am flight 103...about 190 of those killed were American citizens.

posted July 31, 2010 11:14 AM         

to me "conditional release" means he is probably under surveillance and maybe even house arrest. in any case HIS activities are not in question at this point. it is the bargaining done by BP to trade his "freedom" for oil that the british are irate about right now.

whether you think someone should rot in prison or be allowed to rot at home, it is easy enough to see that the obama administration may have thought negotiations were still in progress and that they may not have been informed the release was going ahead just prior to its actually happening.

“Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as “half-hearted” and a sign it would be accepted.”

what can i say? some of us actually think that someone has to be the first to be compassionate and christian in their governing decisions before the world can become a compassionate place. which is not the same as saying not being ready to take action if the other side shows bloodymindedness...

posted July 31, 2010 11:52 AM         

This man was not and is not dying. Something the imbecile O'Bomber would have quickly found out...and so would British and Scottish officials found out if they had had this terrorist bomber examined by a competent physician.

If the British and Scottish officials knew he wasn't dying then they foxed O'Bomber into agreeing with their hoax...that the terrorist bomber was dying.

O'Bomber KNEW the terrorist bomber was going to be released from Scottish control. O'Bomber wanted him released to roam among Scottish citizens...some of whom had friends or relatives this piece of terrorist crap killed when he blew up that Pan Am flight.

He should never have been sentenced to prison in the first place. He should have been hanged upon conviction....as should they all.

demoscats know this is a problem for O'Bomber...so why don't you?

Upon the surfacing of this communication between the O'Bomber administration and British/Scottish officials...Senate hearings into the release of this terrorist bomber were abruptly canceled.

posted July 31, 2010 05:54 PM         

he would not be the first person to be sent home to die only to defy the best medical expert opinions and survive AND thrive. it was, as i recall, commonly assumed he WAS dying and that made it safe to let him go instead of paying for his keep.

posted July 31, 2010 08:14 PM         

Yes, yes, yes....woulda...coulda...shoulda but none of that ever made it into any written communication between the O'Bomber regime and the British and Scottish officials who oversaw the release of the terrorist bomber.

However, it does make an unbelievable cover story...after the fact and to cover some a$$es when it blew up in O'Bomber's incompetent face.

posted July 31, 2010 10:14 PM         

mind you the same post says out of one side of its mouth that the "embassy letter" had not been released, and with the other it QUOTES said unreleased letter?

posted July 31, 2010 11:11 PM         

PS, I don't give a rat's ass what Ed Morrisey thinks about the O'Bomber regime's intentions to green light or not green light the release of a terrorist bomber who killed about 190 American citizens.

"LeBaron’s note was a clear signal to Scotland that the US had lost most of its interest in Megrahi"

posted August 15, 2010 11:29 PM         

After the Senate passed that $600 million Border Security Bill yesterday, President Obama issued a statement asserting that securing the southwest border has been "a top priority" since he took office.

But if you think Mr. Obama can have but a single "top priority," you'd be wrong. He's got a load of them.

In an Address to the Nation two months ago, Mr. Obama declared "our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American."

More than any other issue, he has used the phrase "top priority" about digging the economy out of the recession and creating jobs. And on this issue, he drew a distinction between "a" top priority and "the" top priority.

"Creating jobs in the United States and ensuring a return to sustainable economic growth is the top priority for my Administration," he said in an Executive Order last March on his National Export Initiative.

Early in his administration, Mr. Obama also assigned the "top priority" label to his campaign promise to overhaul America's health care system. But a check of his speeches since taking office, reflect a bevy of other "top priorities:"

FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS: "...that's something that's going to be a top priority." (4/27/10)

ENERGY SECURITY: "And that's why my energy security plan has been one of the top priorities of my Administration since the day I took office." (4/28/10)

EDUCATION REFORM: "To train our workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we've made education reform a top priority in this Administration." (2/24/10)

STUDENT LOAN REFORM: "This is something that I've made a top priority." (2/1/10)

EXPORTS BY SMALL BUSINESSES: "This is going to be a top priority." (12/3/09)

HEALTH ASSISTANCE TO 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS: "I'm not just talking the talk, we've been budgeting this as a top priority for this Administration." (2/3/10)

END HOMELESSNESS AMONG VETERANS: "I've also directed (Veterans Affairs) Secretary Shinseki to focus on a top priority: reducing homeless among veterans." (8/17/09)

HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS: "Our top priority is ensuring the public safety. That means appropriate sheltering in place or if necessary, getting as many people as possible out of harm's way prior to landfall." (5/29/09)

H1N1 FLU VACCINATIONS: "And throughout this process, my top priority has been the health and the safety of the American people." (5/1/09)

SUPPORT FOR MILITARY FAMILIES: "These military families are heroes too. And they are a top priority of Michelle and me. And they will always have our support." (5/30/09)

STRENTHENING TIES WITH CANADA AND MEXICO: "We're going to make this a top priority..." (10/16/09)

CONSUMER PROTECTION: "During these challenging times, the needs of American consumers are a top priority of my Administration." (2/11/09)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: "So this is going to be a top priority generally improving our environmental quality." (11/5/09)

The dictionary defines "top" as a singular entity: "the part of anything that is first or foremost."