When asked in the interview if trade and BP were factors, Mr Straw admits: “Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state. “We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal.”Straw's admission was made in the fall of 2009 but our American press is a little slow so let's charge on ahead as if brand new! Theory upfront--Dems in Congress probably figure they can dredge this up again for the first time to help Obama link an even more sinister BP to an even more embarrassed Rep Joe Barton in their hopeless quest to re-take Congress, basically from themselves. The admin is already on record as planning to focus on Joe Barton and the failed policies of the past (that began before 2007), so what better way than to write a letter to the press addressed to Hillary F. Clinton in an effort to spur the bullhorns over at the New York Times into action?
The acknowledgment came after American legislators, grappling with the controversy over the company’s disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, called for an investigation into BP’s actions in the case of the freed man, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi.Outrageous and everything, but isn't at least some critical thought warranted? First, is it really plausible to believe an American president would get rolled by Scotland for no reason? They claim to have had no connection to any oil deals and just released the man because he was almost dead. In other words, no.
What about the UK Labor Party as the potential rollers? Well, OK, they rolled a newly-elected socialist-leaning US president who took lots of donations from BP, just to help BP? The downsides were huge--an American aircraft, full of Americans, with Obama currently escalating troops in Afghanistan to stop terrorists- that's a lot of potential blowback for a man after their own hearts. The world would be left to believe their president had no leverage or any vested interest in the fate of someone who at one time was the equivalent of bin Laden. And could the press possibly be that friendly (actually, yes)? Or are we left to seriously to believe it was all about Obama's royal snubbery?
The only other plausible card is of the Chicago variety- or Obama got something from the deal; that he quietly agreed to go along in hopes Q'daffy would hold up his end of the bargain and not throw a parade on the tarmac at Tripoli for the homecoming. It would all go down quietly as planned, and if not, bring on the mock outrage. Still, a definite appearance of weakness for the ass-kicker and world uniter in chief, all for essentially looking the other way so BP could score some light sweet Libyan oil. Ok, do the four Senators really want to pursue this to conclusion? Or the media? Right here before the mid-terms? They may find something more troubling than Joe Barton.
Meanwhile, the one who did the real rolling, the thug still smarting from Reagan's attack on his palace compound and who no doubt has enjoyed every minute of this fubar despite the victims' families, is good ole Moammar. He's the one who set this up by initially insisted on the trade, setting up the west. The terrorist-enabler with whom we used to avoid negotiating has made fools of us all because we tried to negotiate and, as Straw said, "bring them into the fold".
For some reason we knew better with Saddam, yet this nut actually had an active nuke program and they plowed ahead anyway. Aside from the possibility they're all just a bunch of clueless buffoons the UK must really need the oil. BP pensions, perhaps? Meanwhile, Hillary has been told to put on her sheriff's badge and investigate but the investigation needs to occur in her office first. Perhaps they might find some teachable moments in there.