RUSH: There’s a big story out there today, the Lockerbie bomber story, and for those of you that don’t really know about this, the bomber did not blow up Lockerbie. The bomber blew up a Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie, and it happened to crash in Lockerbie. And that’s why it’s called the Lockerbie bomber, but he blew up a Boeing 747. We have the Obama administration last Tuesday afternoon, Obama talking with Prime Minister David Cameron, joint presser, and Mimi Hall from USA Today got up and read the following question. It was given to her by David Axelrod. ‘President Obama, how do you feel about a congressional investigation into the Lockerbie bomber stuff, would you like to see that happen or do you think that that confuses the two events?’
OBAMA: I think all 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.
RUSH: Well, that’s just not true because the White House privately backed the release of the Lockerbie bomber. That’s right. This is from The Australian, published today: ‘The US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be ‘far preferable’ to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya. Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison. The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer,’ from which he’s apparently recovered. ‘The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were ‘surprised, disappointed and angry’ to learn of Megrahi’s release. Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as ‘half-hearted’ and a sign it would be accepted.’
This is big, folks. It’s as big, if not bigger than the WikiLeaks thing. The WikiLeaks thing, can we now call this the Democrats’ war? They wanted it. From the first day we went into Iraq they wanted to focus on Afghanistan. This is Obama’s war. Can we now call it Obama’s war? Yes we can, and we will do so accurately. I still don’t know what to call these people. They’re not media. The flacks for the ruling class will of course not call it Obama’s war, but it clearly is. The White House backed release of Lockerbie, the bomber. Now, remember ClimateGate, let’s put all this in perspective. ClimateGate was a story because e-mails got out that were meant to remain hidden from public view, forever. Information about the White House backing the release of the Lockerbie bomber was never supposed to see the light of day, either. But it has. This is the same regime that desperately wants to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City; the same regime that wants NASA to help Muslims feel better about themselves in math and science; the same regime that has not said a word about a mosque at Ground Zero, which is opposed by I think even 71% of New Yorkers and throughout the country. A mosque at Ground Zero is meant as a monument to our defeat, and we have a bunch of politically correct cowards who are afraid to stand up to this and say, ‘No, no, no, no,’ because we still feel somehow the need to reach out, to have understanding with militants in the Islamic world.
So we’ve got a mosque at Ground Zero, the regime has not spoken out against it. They want to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. They want NASA to reach out to Muslims; the same regime that has spent millions of American taxpayer dollars supporting a constitutional referendum in Kenya legalizing abortion there; the same regime that looked the other way when the Iranian people had an opportunity to get their freedom back; the same regime that has done nothing to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; the same regime that has beat up on Israel like a rented mule; the same regime that lied about backing the release of the Muslim terrorist the world knows as the Lockerbie bomber. We now know that the administration backed the release of the bomber.
Now, for those of you new to the program, never forget these two simple words: liberals lie. That’s all you ever have to know to understand them. You must look at them ideologically. You must look at Obama and every Democrat ideologically because that’s what they are. Before the Lockerbie bombshell, some recent history to give the story context, this is The Politico. July 20th, play the sound bite again. We now know the administration backed, very privately and by not objecting at all to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, this is Obama last Tuesday.
OBAMA: I think all 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.
RUSH: It just isn’t true. Now, the Obama connection to the Lockerbie bomber release only came out accidentally. It wasn’t because of our so-called news media. They ignored it. It was US Democrats who were flailing around for something to attack BP over that uncovered this. The liberal Democrats in this country wanted to savage BP over the oil leak, discovered that the Obama regime supported the release of the Lockerbie bomber. And they were searching around for something to attack BP over after the leak had been capped. The leak got capped too soon to be useful for this election cycle, the American left. So they started digging for dirt and they found this. The US media didn’t find it and they wouldn’t have reported it if they had. This is reported in Australia. Their cries for an investigation into BP’s involvement has come back to bite ’em on the backside. Somebody leaking Obama’s memo, somebody in the UK has leaked Obama’s memo supporting the release of the Lockerbie bomber. The Democrats are Frank ‘The Lout’ Lautenberg, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Charles Schumer of New York and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York who called for this investigation of BP that revealed the memo. But the Obama regime that supported the release. Now, I can imagine a lot of you say, ‘Rush, why? Why would the Obama administration, why would the regime want to support the early release of the Lockerbie bomber?’
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Remember, now, the Obama connection to the Lockerbie bomber release only came out accidentally. It was because the Democrats… It wasn’t because of the news media or whatever we’re going to call these people, the flacks for the ruling class. They ignored it. It was American Democrats looking for a new angle to rip into BP after they capped the well. They were demanding an investigation. So they were uncovering all kinds of things. They were looking for things. It was Lautenberg, Menendez, Gillibrand and Chuck-U Schumer. Here’s how CNN put it last week: ‘In the wake of turbulence of the rupture in April of a BP deep-water well — a rupture that is still releasing millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico — the U.S. senators grasped onto another reason to scrutinize the troubled oil company.’
That quote is from a July 14th CNN report. ‘Senators Question Whether BP Played Role in Pan Am Bomber’s Release,’ and even CNN could not escape the obvious. They said, ‘[T]he U.S. senators grasped onto another reason to scrutinize the troubled oil company,’ and when they started looking into it, guess what? They found a memo indicating the regime of Barack Obama had supported the early release of the Lockerbie bomber, and people said, ‘Why?’ I’ll tell you why. It is because President Obama does not give a damn about what went on before he became president. He doesn’t care about the people of this country, but he wants to give the impression that he does. He wants to give the impression that he’s doing everything for them, for us.
Just remember the context of the time. He wanted to make nice with the Muslim world. He figured out the people on that airline, that airplane, Pan Am, were gone. Nothing he could do about that. Can’t bring ’em back anyway. So ‘turn the page,’ ‘hit the reset button,’ make nice with the enemy. Also show the Muslim world that you’re different, that you’re better, that you’re not an imperialist American, that we can all get along. Remember the Cairo speech. Remember the desire to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a trial in New York City, after the ‘sheik’ had asked for the death penalty. This is the truth. A lot of people have trouble with the motivations because… Well, a lot of people have trouble with the actual fact. Why would Obama want to participate or okay the early release of the Lockerbie bomber? That’s the question people have. Then when you tell them as I just did, ‘No, Rush! Come on. You really think…?
Yes, I do, and all you have to go do is go back and look at the context of the time (‘context’ being a big word now), and the context at the time was to show the rest of the world that we’re new now, that we’re different, that the rest of the world can love us and respect us. We don’t have the hatreds that we had when Bush was running the show. We don’t hate the Muslims. We don’t hate the Islamofascists. We’re gonna reach out to them. ‘What happened before I got here,’ Obama says, ‘is irrelevant. Now that I’m here, I’m the one you’ve all been waiting for! Now American is finally just. Now America has finally become truly moral. What happened before I got here doesn’t count anyway. It doesn’t matter. America was flawed then but America is perfect now because I’m perfect and because I’m here.’ He can’t bring the people on that airplane back, so turn the page, hit the reset button, make nice with the enemy and then say, ‘You can’t even call it terrorism anymore.’ There’s no question why he supported the release here.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: From the UK Guardian (by the way, one of the preferred publications on the receiving end of the Afghanistan war docs): ‘Barack Obama is under growing pressure to release a letter that reveals the US grudgingly supported freeing the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds. The letter was sent to Scottish ministers by a senior diplomat at the US embassy in London last August, eight days before [this is July 25th, this year] Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison because he was dying from inoperable prostate cancer. Obama’s [regime] has refused to allow publication of the letter, in which the US says allowing Megrahi to live at home in Scotland would be ‘far preferable’ to sending him back to Libya under the prisoner transfer deal brokered by former prime minister Tony Blair in 2007,’ which makes perfect sense.
It would appear that Obama was all for letting the mass murderer out of prison, but he didn’t want to do anything to help Scotland BP to get more carbon-emitting oil from Libya. After all, he’s got his priorities here. So it’s very apparent now that the administration’s making all of this up, that they did indeed give support to the whole idea of the release of the Lockerbie bomber. I think that story has as much impact as this WikiLeaks story.