Who's lying? asks the Pittsburg press ?

Gordy and Clarence say I



http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_639806.html

The outrage grows over Scotland's decision to give compassionate release to the Libyan terrorist convicted of slaughtering 270 people with a bomb planted aboard a Pan Am jumbo jet in 1988.

As if the Libyans' decision to give Abel Baset al-Megrahi a hero's welcome was not salt enough in the never-to-be-closed wound, there are growing suggestions that the release was not because of the killer's terminal cancer but purely political.

It turns out that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi discussed Mr. Megrahi's release six weeks ago, in July, at the Group of Eight summit in Italy.

That belies the contention that there were no political machinations behind the scenes.

So does the paper trail. The Sunday Times of London reports that British Foreign Office Minister Ivan Lewis wrote to the Scottish justice minister that there were no legal barriers to the release of this thug after serving only eight years of a life sentence.

Looming large on the horizon in all of this is speculation of a trade deal -- possibly involving oil -- between Britain and Libya.

Is somebody lying? Who? And, if so, why?

The British Foreign Office is calling all such speculation "absolute rubbish." But American leaders rightfully have condemned Megrahi's release as giving comfort to terrorists.

And that's the real rubbish of this sordid tale

American tourists to Britain, ask your selves this WHO KILLED MADDIE AND WHO COVERED IT UP ?

American tourists to Britain

American tourists to Britain

American tourists to Britain

American tourists to Britain

American tourists to Britain

In the hope that bot's or google pick it up.

John Hirst once got a Clarence mitchell quoute to the top of google search.

Laffin Assasin wrote:John Hirst once got a Clarence mitchell quoute to the top of google search.

That's a good point.

Does anyone know how Google and other search Engines rank their links? I believe they used to do it by the number of webpages that linked to that page, but with blogs and forums appearing high on the list, I suspect they now use a different algorithm.

Similarly I've always though it's worth using a few popular tags in YouTube videos ..... like "sex", "numa".

I dont agree its off the wall-it goes to heart of gordon browns charactor and they way he manipulates behind the scenes -something which he appears to have done in this case-there was a puzzle as to why but I now beleive it has become much clearer-he simply didnt want it known that his "princess diana" moment was ill judged he jumped in an interfered with an ongoing investigation before he knew that that the local police had doubts that an abductor had been seen as described by Jane Tanner -either that or he knew but thought he knew better than the proffessionals-either way he knew his political opponents would capitalise on his blunder and he has since been catgorised as thin skinned petulant and dictatorial and cannot bear to be wrong -beats all those comare conspiracy theoies

I never said Gordon BROWN was responsible for the death of Madeleine McCann-I take it you are not referring to my post?

woodward wrote:I dont agree its off the wall-it goes to heart of gordon browns charactor and they way he manipulates behind the scenes -something which he appears to have done in this case-there was a puzzle as to why but I now beleive it has become much clearer-he simply didnt want it known that his "princess diana" moment was ill judged he jumped in an interfered with an ongoing investigation before he knew that that the local police had doubts that an abductor had been seen as described by Jane Tanner -either that or he knew but thought he knew better than the proffessionals-either way he knew his political opponents would capitalise on his blunder and he has since been catgorised as thin skinned petulant and dictatorial and cannot bear to be wrong -beats all those comare conspiracy theoies

I agree with you...he jumped in trying to look good (he was about to become PM) and it backfired on him. In his usual arrogant way I expect he thought he'd get it solved in 5 minutes.

Well put Angelina

There were a few high-profile backers who jumped on the bandwaggon in the early days. Where are they all now? Obviously they do not want to lose face by admitting that they may have been mistaken about Saint Kate and Saint Gerry.

The Famous Grouse wrote:There were a few high-profile backers who jumped on the bandwaggon in the early days. Where are they all now? Obviously they do not want to lose face by admitting that they may have been mistaken about Saint Kate and Saint Gerry.

They've probably just jumped on the next PR bandwagon. I doubt they were all there out of the kindness of their hearts.

None of the other bandwaggon jumpers tried to dictate the direction of the investigation though apart from Gordon BROWN and possibly Brian KENNEDY-NEITHER of whom should have interfered imo

woodward wrote:I dont agree its off the wall-it goes to heart of gordon browns charactor and they way he manipulates behind the scenes -something which he appears to have done in this case-there was a puzzle as to why but I now beleive it has become much clearer-he simply didnt want it known that his "princess diana" moment was ill judged he jumped in an interfered with an ongoing investigation before he knew that that the local police had doubts that an abductor had been seen as described by Jane Tanner -either that or he knew but thought he knew better than the proffessionals-either way he knew his political opponents would capitalise on his blunder and he has since been catgorised as thin skinned petulant and dictatorial and cannot bear to be wrong -beats all those comare conspiracy theoies

i think you got the so called 'government interference issue' nailed here.

IF it is the case that the entire cover up is simply to protect gordon browns premiership justice may yet be served somewhere down the line-wouldnt it be wonderful for her grandparents to know definitavely what happened and all the other family members currently distressed by not knowing

woodward wrote:IF it is the case that the entire cover up is simply to protect gordon browns premiership...

yep, just to cover brown and his meddling. not to cover up the mccanns. just not enough evidence to prosecute a case where that's concerned.

SelectedSeconds wrote:Another completely off the wall post in the main Madeleine threads.
Can posters not take their own personal obsessions to the news section?

I have no objection to it being move to another part of the forum.

thats a shame laffin because this front section is the most likely place it will be read and I think it is a very pertinent post

woodward wrote:thats a shame laffin because this front section is the most likely place it will be read and I think it is a very pertinent post

OK, at the end of the day, it's what admin think about it.

AGREED

possible. i believe the americans did come to that conclusion.

Well, I for one do not think that Almegrahi was the real culprit, and I know lots of other people who think the same.

The Famous Grouse wrote:Well, I for one do not think that Almegrahi was the real culprit, and I know lots of other people who think the same.

I think you are probably right, there were many people involved and Almergrahi was the fall guy, but I do believe he was involved.

Why did Gordon Brown get involved with the McCanns? Firstly yes, I think he thought it would look good for his future career to become Prime Minister, but I also think he felt sympathy for the McCanns as he knew what it was like to lose a child and I certainly think his wife would have. Unfortunately, I think he then got carried along and could not step off the waltzer and the spin spin spin. However I could be totally wrong.