Michael Portillo thinks there may have been a deal behind the release of the convicted Libyan terrorist to a hero's welcome.
I don't buy it. I think the truth is much worse. I wish that there were some sort of venal interest but I think they may have actually thought it was the moral thing to do.
I suspect it is just as simple as moral grandstanding. We, in contrast to the vengeful US and their running dog lackeys at Whitehall, are a forgiving people. There is something about the current age that makes people thing that abasing themselves before the scum of the earth will make them safer. Have people lost their capacity for disgust? This cowardly murderer with his smarmy expressions of "sympathy" for the families of his victims, this man who murdered kids on their way home for Christmas to see their families talking about how he would like to die in the bosom of his, now getting a heros welcome from that base and depraved nation, is this not a spectacle that should excite the disgust of a civilized people?
What kind of people are the Scotts that they should chose to cause such a revolting spectacle merely to inform the world that they exist, that they can make their own decisions?
Ruth Wedgewood chronicles the entire farce of the Lockerbie affair. To my mind it all points to the absurdity of treating an act of war as a crime and tiring it through the international system on top of it.