It is insulting to be told an obvious lie; more insulting when the lie is insisted upon, in the face of undeniable facts. Unfortunately, few of our contemporary politicians seem to grasp this, yet they do not always pay for it in the polls. It appears from this distance that at least Gordon Brown, the current U.K. prime minister, will not be returned to office when the British have their next chance to vote, and that his Labour Party will be annihilated. But I wish I could be sure.
Now, Brown had a great deal counting against him even before the British electorate, and media consumers worldwide, got to see the hero’s welcome in Libya for the terrorist the British had released on “compassionate grounds.” The prime minister apparently thought Moammar Gaddafi—the Libyan dictator who sent that terrorist on the Lockerbie mission, just before Christmas in 1988, to celebrate Ronald Reagan’s retirement—could be relied upon not to crow at his success in humiliating the British government.
The lie—that the release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi had nothing to do with direct negotiations between Brown and Gaddafi (and others) last month—has not washed with anyone. To update my Sunday column, it would now appear that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, was the naive character left finding excuses for a deal already cut well over his head. He is, dear fellow, now trying to get Whitehall permission to publish all the documents of the case, which will show, he thinks, that his “compassionate grounds” were preferable to the much smellier prisoner exchange the Brown government was contemplating. Bless his innocence: the fact that his proposed solution was itself a brazen miscarriage of justice, is lost on him.
Brown, realizing that the release of this terrorist under any terms would go over poorly with normal people, needed MacAskill as his scapegoat. The question of evil can be taken off the table: MacAskill now stands revealed as a man even stupider than Gordon Brown.
Though not as craven. Americans and others who propose to boycott Scotch whisky should realize that ye Scots had precious little to do with this, beyond their characteristic propensity to elect governments on the motive of class resentment alone. Brown and his government—recruiting such royal escorts as Prince Andrew to front their trade missions—were simply trying to do business with the Libyan regime, which is, after all, floating in oil money. Releasing a mass murderer from a Scottish prison likely seemed a small price to pay for all the millions in British business opportunities that remained on ice through Gaddafi’s displeasure.
There is a kind of candour in Gaddafi’s behaviour that becomes almost attractive in comparison with western business calculations. For the Libyan master terrorist, oil money is important, but only as a means to ends that have nothing to do with economic development. Gaddafi’s plain talk, thanking Brown, Prince Andrew, and even our Queen for springing his murderous operative, rings with truth—confirmed by a glance at the grovelling “Dear Moammar” letter Brown sent him.
Similarly, Gaddafi’s open boasting about, for instance, the impending Muslim demographic takeover of Europe, shines with candour in comparison to western essays in political correctness. Like Lenin, Hitler, and every other totalitarian on whom he has modelled himself, Gaddafi long ago realized there was no need to hide his intentions. The “sophistication” of the west is such that if you openly state, “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we hang them,” our diplomatists will go to work explaining this away, while organizing another trade mission.
Gaddafi has had a long life in politics—40 years of uninterrupted rule. That he is at least half mad, we knew from the beginning. But you do not need all your wits about you to get what you want from “sophisticated” people. Just having a weapon is enough to make them very obliging, and the oil weapon has proved more than availing, and for more than Gaddafi, through all this time.
Consider another current example. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, his hands full torturing and murdering his own rebellious subjects to preserve his power at home, remains otherwise at leisure to play the west like a tanbur. (Traditional, pear-shaped Persian plucked musical instrument that when strummed produces a sound like pouring oil.) He does not hesitate to appoint as his new defence minister Ahmad Vahidi, former commander of the “Quds” force of the Revolutionary Guard (in charge of foreign operations)—and still wanted by Interpol as the mastermind of, for instance, a terror bombing on a Jewish centre, in Buenos Aires in 1994, in which nearly 300 people were killed or maimed.
Ahmadinejad is currently demanding an apology from the west in general, and from Argentina in particular, for having had the audacity to question this appointment. Will he get it? We’ll see.
- Robin Hoodism is on the rise - Sunday January 2, 2011 at 9:35 am
- Taking on the Reformation - Wednesday December 29, 2010 at 8:53 am
- The miserly Canadian - Wednesday December 22, 2010 at 5:23 am
