In FrontPage this morning I discuss the curious new revelations about Obama’s stance toward the release of the Lockerbie jihadist:
[…] And so the key question that should be posed to Barack Obama today is why he believed that “compassionate” release was preferable for this remorseless mass murderer than time in a Libyan jail. And if his administration approved of al-Megrahi’s “compassionate” release, or at least had green-lighted it as a possibility before it occurred, why were U.S. officials “surprised, disappointed and angry” when it actually happened? Were any quid pro quos involved, either from Libya, whose strongman Muammar Gaddafi has lavishly praised Obama, or from Great Britain?
Obama should also be asked, if the White House press corps were not so anxious to further the President’s agenda, why this monster deserved any kind of compassion whatsoever, even if the reports about his terminal cancer had been true. Why should Abdelbeset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi, of all people, not die in prison for his pitiless crime of blowing an airplane out of the sky four days before Christmas and killing everyone on board? Isn’t even the contemplation of “compassionate release” for such a man a miscarriage of justice for those who were killed, and an indication of a moral myopia staggering in its severity on the part of British authorities and Obama?
Given Obama’s oft-repeated desire to establish relations with the Islamic world on the basis of a “mutual respect” that remains ever-elusive from the Islamic side, as shown in the new book I have written with Pamela Geller, The Post-American Presidency, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he directed U.S. officials to approve of al-Megrahi’s “compassionate release” as yet another gesture of good will toward the Islamic world. Yet these gestures of good will remain unreciprocated. Al-Megrahi is free, his crime unpunished. Will anyone ask Barack Obama why?