"Four Democrat senators are demanding an investigation into whether BP played any role in the release of Megrahi. If the slightest evidence to that effect surfaces, BP is toast. The Obama administration will take it out. That would make Obama look strong again, it would provide a useful distraction from his other failures and it would be the first initiative by him that would enthuse redneck Republicans."
I find this article strangely at odds with the normal balance one might expect from the Telegraph. Earlier in the self same article, Warner says "BP’s role in pressing for a decision on the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, to facilitate its acquiring oil exploration rights from the Gaddafi regime, is now common knowledge".
Cannot have something common knowledge and if slightest evidence at the same time Gerald.
We also get considerable barrage at the fact that the ex-prisoner is still with us. Has the learned and world wise correspondent never heard of remission? "Complete remission means that the cancer or leukaemia can't be detected on scans, X-rays, or blood tests etc.Doctors sometimes call this a complete response.
Partial remission means the treatment has killed some of the cells, but not all. The cancer has shrunk, but can still be seen on scans and doesn't appear to be growing.. The treatment may have stopped the cancer from growing. Or made it smaller so that other treatments are more likely to help, such as surgery or radiotherapy. This is sometimes called a partial response."
I am not able to say whether this remission has visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi but then neither is Warner. He bases his vituperation on al-Megrahi having lasted so long after release on some put-up jon when remission is just as likely. A prognosis is not a guaranteed outcome. al-Megrahi's situation was examined by numerous experts and I am not aware of any who have said he was in full health. The debate as to whether or not al-Meghari did it seems superfluous when the complaint is that political expediency was involved in his release.
Certainly the whole matter is being used as another stick to beat BP. The Americans quite like a shady deal. If one wants one in an oil context - have a look at Love Canal.If doubt lingers - just pop over to Vietnam history. The idea that some Britishers might swing something over Uncle Sam has rendered many incandescent. My mother always used to say one should not judge; I stick with people in glass houses should not throw stones. The people who complain that passengers in that ill-fated PanAm flight didn't get to go home free seem to forget the blasting out of the sky of an Iranian jet by a US warship.
Whilst I can appreciate that the posing by US politicians, all paragons of virtue, may inflame the situation I cannot truly understand why they are ranting on as they are. If they feel they were hard done by, why not go down the good old American route of litigation? Some court somewhere has jurisdiction to hear an appeal. It can then see where it goes - or does the US recognise just what a waste of time, money and effort the UN really is? Trying the case in the media does nothing except encourage rabble rousing based on false premise such as the Telegraph has wasted wood pulp on today. I might be prejudiced but I keep coming back to this.