Attraction

I'm not sure why, but a local guy has taken to reading my Tweets even though he doesn't follow me. His name is Chris, and he's an Obama supporter.

I offered to go to lunch with him. There's only so much you can explain in 140 characters. But that's not really his thing.

Yesterday, I mentioned that Obama had no outrage about the Lockerbie bomber's release. Chris pointed me to this article, which says this:

"Highly objectionable," Obama told reporters on the White House lawn.

"Outrageous and disgusting," added White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Chris asks me, in Tweet, "What should he do, bomb Libya?"

To which I replied: "Somewhere between 'Highly objectionable' and 'bombing' lies an appropriately outraged response."

And Chris comes back with: "What response would have made you happy? Obviously you don't like the guy, but to call him out on this is silly."

Silly? Really? Obama got more involved in Skip Gates' brush with a Cambridge police officer than he involves himself with a man freed who murdered hundreds of people in a terrorist act.

So, to answer Chris, here are some examples of a more appropriate reaction. Keep in mind, I'm no super genius like Obama, but these seem right to me:

• Send Hillary Clinton, a high-ranking administration official, to England immediately to let them know that this is unacceptable.
• Consider sanctions against Scottish imports.
• Send in a team to extract the unrepentant bomber to a White House beer summit where the relatives of those murdered can confront the murderer. That would at least be the equivalent of what he did on behalf of his friend, Skip Gates - though it might end in a few broken beer bottles.

Silly? No. Silly is defending the indefensible.

We elected a king of fancy words, and not an executive who values America enough to protect it. Shame on us for choosing such a weak man whose priorities are openly anti-American. If you haven't figured out yet why Obama selects his priorities as he does, you need to pay closer attention.

by Brett Rogers, 8/24/2009 12:49:48 PM
Permalink

The stink from this decision continues to grow. Questions about the medical diagnosis and now reports of the British government cutting a deal for oil exploration (Fox News running a front page story now). Just sickening. This administration better do something quickly as the anger is growing here, especially with Qaddafi wanting to pitch a tent in NY next month. Even the Democrats are starting to howl.

On a personal level I was attending Syracuse University at the time. 35 fellow students were murdered by the bombing. I still remember that day.

If they want to talk compassion, they should think of the families effected. Not the piece of shit responsible.

Posted by Pale Rider, 8/30/2009 12:14:41 AM

Sorry have been swamped with work and social activities to finish my response. Here it is.

Example 1- Obama had SOS Clinton speak with Scotland's justice secretary, as well as the governments of England and Libya BEFORE Megrahi was released.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0819/p02s21-usfp.html

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has talked to Mr. MacAskill and "expressed strongly" the US view that Mr. Megrahi should not be released, according to Philip Crowley, State Department spokesman. "We have made our views clear not only to Scotland, not only to the UK, but also to Libya," Mr. Crowley said at a briefing last week. "We had a fair trial. He was convicted. He's serving his time, and we think he should stay in jail."

Example 2- Sanctions against Scottish imports would not only be politically difficult to accomplish (especially when the country and the rest of the world is just beginning to emerge from a global recession) but also unnecessary punishment to the citizens and businesses of Scotland that had nothing to do with this decision.

Example 3- More silliness.

I respect your opinion, but my opinion is that you’re dead wrong on this issue. I’m not saying that Megrahi’s release was excusable, but it was one man’s decision. You mentioned getting SOS Clinton involved; since the President did the same thing, I guess you guys aren’t too far apart in your thinking. ;)

You also mentioned President Obama did more to get involved in the Gates situation. All he did was comment on the situation and invite the gentlemen involved over to his house for beers. It was a bit lighter of an issue. I wouldn’t say the two situations can be compared apples to apples. Actually, it looks like his administration has been urging the Libyans to keep Megrahi under house arrest. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/20/lockerbie-bomber-release-libya-obama

I'm not sure whether to laugh at your rhetoric or feel sorry that you're consumed by so much hatred for our President. You accuse him of having anti-American priorities and not valuing America enough to protect it. What do you think he’s doing in Afghanistan? That’s where the 9-11 terrorists trained and that’s where we are fighting them. Wasn’t it conservatives who said the fight in Iraq was necessary to protect our freedoms? So if we’re in a foreign country fighting the people most responsible for terrorist activities, how is that an anti-American priority? How does that fight make us look weak with President Obama at the helm? Again, I appreciate your opinion, but you make yourself look foolish with remarks like these.

Posted by Chris, 8/30/2009 11:32:52 AM

Chris, all Obama did was "comment on the situation and invite the gentlemen involved over to his house for beers?" Nice spin. Try making a completely foolish blunder demeaning the police without knowing any of the facts, then trying to cover his backside. You are right though, it isn't an apples to apples comparison and Obama took much more of an active role in the Gates foot in the mouth incident than he has here. That is pathetic.

Just because someone opposes Obama's policies doesn't make them filled with hate, nor does it make them racist (no you didn't say it but the left constantly throws that out there, so who is really filled with hate?). As a conservative independent, I just see him as completely unqualified for the office he holds, and view his followers as complete fools lacking basic knowledge of math and logic.

Posted by Pale Rider, 8/30/2009 12:07:44 PM

Don't let facts get in the way of reasonable debate. You won't be hearing from me again. Good luck in all of your endeavors.

Posted by Chris, 8/30/2009 2:11:19 PM

Just got back from a long bike ride with Tamara, so I'm catching up to the conversation.

Chris may never read this, but you know what's crazy? He actually makes my point for me. My point was that we had no suitable response. To counter that, he talks about what we did "BEFORE" it all went down, and makes no mention of an appropriate response from the administration after it happened.

The media tells us how much respect the world has for us now, but where is the demonstrable show of that? These countries (Scotland, England, and Libya) have no respect for our wishes for justice. And why should they? Obama doesn't care and they know that.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 8/30/2009 3:18:32 PM