Talk About Blood for Oil

Just as most other Americans out there, I am absolutely outraged by Scotland's release of the Pan-Am bomber, to (what else but) jubilation and reverence in Libya.

Scotland's reason for the handover of a man who killed 270 people and served only 8 years of a life sentence? "Compassion," of course, in light of his terminal prostate cancer diagnosis.

Well, while this reason made no sense to any sane person, diplomats and laymen alike, the truth -- which makes perfect sense -- has finally come out:

On Friday, Lord Trefgarne, chairman of the Libyan British Business Council, said Mr. Megrahi’s release had opened the way for Britain’s leading oil companies to pursue multibillion-dollar oil contracts with Libya, which had demanded Mr. Megrahi’s return in talks with British officials and business executives.

("New Questions in Lockerbie Bomber’s Release," The New York Times, August 21, 2009.)

Aaaah...so after years of liberal Europeans accusing the U.S. of trading blood for oil, we learn that the proper way to do it is to trade already-shed civilian blood. That makes it bloody better, indeed. Chip chip cheerio, carry on!