tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post3569839345323024147..comments2024-03-07T02:17:34.434-08:00Comments on Tom In Paine: Why the BP-Lockerbie charge smacks of political grandstandingMarc Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-85595737784593634512010-07-19T08:08:07.551-07:002010-07-19T08:08:07.551-07:00Look at the logic or my argument, Marc, first. Unl...Look at the logic or my argument, Marc, first. Unlike its British counterpart MI6, the CIA does not have a rule against wet jobs. It took me a long time to come to my conclusion, and I have tested it often to see if it is unreasonable. <br /><br />Would it have been better if the Iranians had blown up between 5 and 12 US commercial aircraft? They certainly possessed the ability to!<br /><br />In that sense, the Americans were making the best of a bad job. Why the ridiculous Captain William Rogers III was allowed to zoom up and down the (Persian) Gulf attacking all and sundry, and why he was not reined in long before the Vincennes downed IR-655 is beyond explanation, but perhaps the US navy is not subject to proper discipline.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-77242598272790635762010-07-19T07:40:35.256-07:002010-07-19T07:40:35.256-07:00"The destruction of Pan Am 103 was a American..."The destruction of Pan Am 103 was a American government (HW Bush) plot from the start..."<br /><br /><br />Okayyyyyy, gotcha.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-89570108621199825792010-07-19T00:34:39.050-07:002010-07-19T00:34:39.050-07:00Marc is being ridiculous. The destruction of Pan ...Marc is being ridiculous. The destruction of Pan Am 103 was a American government (HW Bush) plot from the start. He hasn't read my theory carefully. In December 1988 Reagan was a lame duck president, and in all practicality had been gaga for years. Real power was in the hands of the Bush claque.<br /><br />Faced with the prospect that the political fall out with the Iranians would destroy his presidential election, the VP treated with them and came up with the idea that Iran would be allowed to destroy an American civil airliner, but only after the election was secured. At first the Iranians demurred (it took four rounds of talks) but then accepted the US imposed deal, under the guise of discussions about Lebanese hostages. <br /><br />By now the US had to deliver. If Bush had decided to cancel the destruction of Pan Am 103, say by cancelling all US flights for a period after the Manly break-in discovery, the Iranians would have got their measure of revenge later. Remember popular opinion in the country was calling for between 5 and a dozen US aircraft in reply. A single old Boeing, largely filled with students, many foreign, with no political clout was a small price to pay.<br /><br />Cynical you may say I am, but people like Dominic Brandone (pseudonym) who negotiated with the Iranians at Glion Switzerland, could be regarded as a life saver rather than a murderer.<br /><br />I cannot find anything quite as wicked in the history of any other country, so the victims so cynically exploited and the rationale so little understood.<br /><br />Remember the relatives of the victims were not allowed to build their memorial in Arlington cemetery until the reign of Bill Clinton, so sensitive was the matter of Pan Am 103 to the Bush regime, <br /><br />By that time the truth had been totally swallowed up by the secondary CIA plot to blame Libya and a certain Libyan, Mr Megrahi.<br /><br />So far none of the real perpetrators many of whom were flung out of the CIA during the Bush II clear-out of his father's old guard cronies has not begun to spill the beans.<br /><br />But as they say, the truth will out.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-39689402191957218592010-07-18T13:21:26.604-07:002010-07-18T13:21:26.604-07:00"This is really quite silly. Reagan was long ..."This is really quite silly. Reagan was long gone from office when the idea that there were problems over the destruction of Pan Am 103.<br /><br />That destruction took place after the US General Election of 1988, and was designed to give Iran its much desired revenge for the IR-655 downing"<br /><br />This is really quite silly. Reagan was still president in 1988 so he was hardly long gone. Most people going to work at the White House in 1988 found him in the Oval Office. He didnt leave office till January 1989 when George HW Bush took office.But thanks for your analysis.Marc Rubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746456438052849715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3820377390281203107.post-61594252174949810282010-07-18T13:01:00.548-07:002010-07-18T13:01:00.548-07:00This is really quite silly. Reagan was long gone f...This is really quite silly. Reagan was long gone from office when the idea that there were problems over the destruction of Pan Am 103.<br /><br />That destruction took place after the US General Election of 1988, and was designed to give Iran its much desired revenge for the IR-655 downing.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.com