Posted on 08/30/2009 8:11:44 PM PDT by Sockdologer
From the London Times:
Gordon Brown was dragged into the centre of the row over the early release of the Lockerbie bomber last night after it emerged that a key decision that could have paved the way for the terrorist to serve his sentence in Libya was approved by Downing Street.
A source close to Jack Straw told The Times that the move to include Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement in 2007 was a government decision and was not made at the sole discretion of the Justice Secretary. "It wasn't just Jack who decided this. It was a Government decision. Jack did not act unilaterally."
The row over the early release of the Lockerbie bomber ten days ago shows no sign of abating after the Ministry of Justice indicated yesterday that the decision to include al-Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement had been made with the possibility of trade deals with Libya in mind.
British Justice Secretary Jack Straw is sounding a bit like Harry Reid. From the London Telegraph:
Mr Straw said Britain forced Libya to give up its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, and "obviously, they had to have something for that."
"But the suggestion that at any stage there was some kind of backdoor deal done over Mr Megrahi's transfer because of trade is simply untrue," he continued.
"All this, however, is academic as Mr Megrahi was not released under the PTA treaty but quite separately by the Scottish Executive on compassionate grounds."
So Mr. Megrahi's release had nothing to do with trade negotiations between Britain and Libya? It was a "quite separate" event? Well, not exactly.
In a letter to [Scots Justice Minister Kenny] MacAskill, written in December 2007and leaked on Sunday, Mr Straw said: "The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the (PTA) should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."
Six weeks after the PTA was agreed, Libya ratified a £15billion oil and gas exploration deal with BP.
One wonders how much longer Gordon Brown can treat water. His government appears to be corrupt and incompetent beyond repair.
Did HolyO know anything about it?
According to the article, many of these negotiations appear to have taken place in 2007 (before the HolyO's accession). It would be interesting to know who in the US State Department knew about it at that time.
What does it take to get a Tory government in the UK?
No word on that yet. I know transcripts will be released soon, detailing conversations with US officials, but I haven’t yet seen any.
This should do it.
It appears you are right...
BROWN AND OUT IN THE POLLS
By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Sun Political Editor
Published: Today
GORDON Brown is heading for a crushing defeat at the next election with voters believing he is failing our troops in Afghanistan, a vital Sun poll reveals today.
Tory David Cameron will sweep to power with a 96-seat Commons majority, the survey predicts.
Seven in ten voters think Mr Brown’s government is doing a “very bad” or “fairly bad” job of supporting Our Boys in the Afghan conflict.
In a further blow to the PM, twice as many voters believe Britain’s armed forces would be better off in Mr Cameron’s hands than Mr Brown’s.
Our exclusive YouGov survey, the most crucial for five years, shows the Tories 14 points up on Labour.
If repeated at an election next May, that would give Mr Cameron 42 per cent of the vote with Labour trailing on 28 and the Lib Dems on 17.
And the Tories would comfortably bring 13 years of New Labour rule to an end.
The survey is particularly significant as every August poll carried out before a spring election since 1996 has predicted the result to within one per cent.
It shows 38 per cent of voters believe Mr Cameron would make the best PM compared to just 19 per cent for Mr Brown.
Six out of ten voters say Mr Brown - also on the rack over the release of the Lockerbie bomber - is doing fairly or very badly in No10. Only 16 per cent think he is doing a good job.
Labour’s rating has actually risen by two points since the last YouGov poll.
But the Tory lead and the strength of public opinion on Afghanistan will bring little comfort to Mr Brown. However, our survey also shows Mr Cameron still has work to do to boost opinion about his potential Cabinet.
Only 34 per cent believe he has the right team to lead Britain.
And voters are evenly split over whether he has the right policies to rule.
Nearly half say they do not believe Mr Cameron when he says he is committed to saving the NHS.
But nearly seven in ten think the extra billions spent on the NHS has been wasted instead of boosting patient services.
And 69 per cent insist that no more should be invested without a shake-up to improve efficiency.
Thank you very much for posting this. Unless the Tories do something extremely horrendous, the next election is almost certainly theirs.
What can you tell me about Cameron — ideologically closer to Maggie or closer to Major?
Well, I’m a bit of a youngster, so I don’t have much of a memory of Thatcher. Cameron is much more conservative than Brown, but he clings to the idea that the NHS is necessary for England. He is charismatic and bold and he seems to be less of an internationalist than his peers. I would prefer to see someone like Daniel Hannan who preaches against the NHS in office, but Cameron will be a marked improvement over Gordon Brown, both in terms of ideology and, I think, integrity.
Thanks for the analysis.
As an American, I want to see the UK governed by the Tories because they are inherently pro-Atlantic alliance and less continental in their foreign and economic policies. At least traditionally. I realize there are exceptions.
I think Cameron fits that bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.