Joust The Facts

'Far Preferable' To Whom, Exactly?

The Obama administration apparently did communicate that they would prefer that the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, remain in a Scottish jail, which is good.  But given the choice between continued incarceration in Libya via prisoner transfer and release they actively encouraged release as "far preferable," according to "documents obtained by The Sunday Times."

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.

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.

When Mr. Obama made that claim, that the release was a surprise to Americans, he could not have included himself in that number.  The Lockerbie bombing took 280 lives, of whom 193 were Americans, including my at the time 22 year old brother.  Given those numbers, and having dealt with Scottish officials for 22 years since my brothers death, there is absolutely no way such an eventful decision would be made without deep consultation within the State Department and the White House.  They all knew, the President knew; it was not a surprise.

In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.

The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."

And now there is proof of these consultations, demonstrating that not only was the administration not nearly serious enough about the loss of those American lives, but that Mr. Obama was not fully honest.  Surprised?  I think not.

Now, in looking at the contents of the letter, I'll take a most generous view that the U.S. felt that only three options were on the table: a) continued incarceration in Scotland, b) release but with the convicted to remain in Scotland, and c) transfer to a Libyan prison, and that d) release to freedom in Libya, was even felt to be plausible.  It does seem that Mr. LeBaron indicated the U.S. first choice was a), but that b) was preferable to c).  Why would release be preferable to continued incarceration wherever it was?  Compassionate, indeed.

It's also apparent that failure to take a strong stand, and simply and clearly state that the U.S. favored al-Megrahi's continued incarceration in Scotland - end of story - opened the door to the release.  It opened the door to the ongoing joke of a convicted mass murderer with "three months to live" now living freely in his home country nearly a full year since his release.

So of course the U.S. knew, and we once again see the inability to take a strong stand in favor of what's right and necessary in dealing with terrorism.

Two Men On Race

Oh, sure, one is white, and one is black.  But read the first, and listen to the second with your eyes closed, and tell me which is which.

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts

Which is both inexplicable and inexcusable, I might add.

Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.

Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.

From Right Scoop, a very educational and well-stated moment of racial lucidity from a candidate for Congress: (via Allahpundit/Hot Air)

Okay, so the video does give it away.  Sen. Webb doesn't quite go as far as Lt. Col. Allen, preferring to maintain the framework of affirmative action, but willing to limit and more carefully tailor the programs. I think that the government, as Sen. Webb writes, should not be in the business of picking winners in any capacity but rather ensuring equality  and opportunity. If you're going to give extra beans to some then you've got to count those beans.  Which of course leads to quotas, whether you call it that or not.  Yet after reading one, and listening to the other, I can really only add one word.

Precisely.

Some "Revelation," Eh?

Via Allahpundit at Hot Air, a WSJ story that is somewhat startling, although that's not the "revelation."  Apparently, there is some thought among some center-left Democrats in Congress that, perhaps, just maybe, now might not be the best time to raise taxes, particularly on the wealthy.

The revelation that tax increases could hurt the economy has recently been heard from Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and, most surprising, even from Kent Conrad of North Dakota. On a scale of unlikely events, this is like the Pope coming out against celibacy. As Senate Budget Chairman, Mr. Conrad has rarely seen a tax increase he didn't like, but this week he averred that "As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn."

Some revelation.  To which economists were you not paying attention, gentlemen?  Or maybe it's just what Democrats do when they fear for their majorities.  Actually, I would quibble with the admonition against cutting spending.  I have absolutely no problem whatsoever trimming unnecessary spending; we can start with a trillion dollars of Obamacare, if you like.  Look how much money I just saved the economy!

But it is certainly the case that increasing taxes in a downturn, particularly with the heaviest hit coming against the primary drivers of the economy - small businesses and those with capital to invest - has the potential to give that deadly double dip a nice leg up, or rather, down.  They'll hunker down until they see the effect that the new levels have on their businesses and personal finances, hunkering down that will have deleterious ripple effect.  In fact, it could certainly be argued that having the Sword of Damocles of tax increases come 2011 hanging over the economy's neck has itself been detrimental.  Unfortunately, as Allah notes, there's no evidence that awareness of this "revelation" has not been noted in the office of the Speaker of the House, or in the White House.

By the way, make no mistake about it.  "Repealing the Bush Tax Cuts" is progressive speak for "Tax Increase."

The JTF "Quote of the Day"

From Harvard's Professor Niall Ferguson:

“If you’re asking if the United States is about to become a socialist state, I’d say it’s actually about to become a European state, with the expansiveness of the welfare system and the progressive tax system like what we’ve already experienced in Western Europe,” Harvard business and history professor Niall Ferguson declared during Monday’s kickoff session, offering a withering critique of Obama’s economic policies, which he claimed were encouraging laziness.

“The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.”

Coincidentally, this agrees with Paul Krugman's economics textbook, though not so much with Mr. Krugman's curious current economic analysis.

So I do not understand why Krugman the textbook writer would argue unemployment benefits is a significant explanation for Eurosclerosis while Krugman the op-ed writer would encourage us to adopt those European policies.  Nothing changed in the results.