and a very different thing to be respected.
His ideas and initiatives are irrelevant to the rough types who rule and conduct foreign policy in many countries in the world today.

when one treats terrorism (and terrorists) as a criminal matter rather than what it truly is, an act of war. Get used to this sort of thing, especially when they start to empty Gitmo (if they dare).

I was in Great Britain, shortly thereafter that election. I inquired how they ‘felt’ about that Scottish gentlemen who was elected.
And in a cab ride, I made up my mind that Brown was indeed further left than that attorny …and Chesea would indeed beat Manchester.

I hope my point of happentstance isn’t missed here.

continues to be one of my all time favorite libs. He’s a true statesman. I disagreed with most of his domestic policies, and think he, Brown and their governments are ultimately responsible for the state Britian is in, I still respect former PM Blair.

I can’t comment on that, But he was certainly a friend to the USA, sometimes it seemed our only friend. I would gladly shake his hand and buy him a scotch and soda anytime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence

According to Wiki the original theory came from a Scot, which is kind of ironic. It is worth the minute or two to read up.

In our world, we are fraught with examples of our “best and brightest”, as they call themselves, claiming to have figured out this and that to the betterment of society. Only, it never works out quite like they anticipated. The reason is the insertion of human nature into the equation.

Here we see Britain cutting a deal with Libya over oil. You could argue it is a standalone incident, but dig deeper and you will see that the problem isn’t with the deal, but WHY the deal was there in the first place. It is cheaper and less troublesome to deal in Libya because of no regulations, no leftie bans on development of resources, no confiscatory taxes, and no bad publicity if something goes wrong. Unlike Britain and the US, which spend way too much time demonizing the same companies that provide them with energy, power, light, gas, and directly or indirectly employ vast numbers of citizens, Libya is more than happy to take the money and technology.

If Britain was developing its own oil fields, or dealing in a competitive situation against the Libya offer, they could have said, “thanks but no thanks” to a bad deal. But instead they have to make a decision based on all of the factors, instead of just the moral ones. A lesson we should learn here.

The same people who get upset about a company making a bottom line decision refuse to accept any responsibility for being part of the problem in the first place. And that is the definition of liberals in our day and time.

You sell your soul in one area; you will find it is sold in all.

As I understand it, there were NO other Libyans being held in British jails at the time that the prisoner exchange was agreed.

I am pretty sure that if Labour had not lost control of the Scottish Parliament and Excecutive in 2007, Megrahi would have been back in Libya two years ago.

The exclusion of Megrahi from the deal was dropped by Jack Straw in 2007, weeks after Blair left office, but I think that must have been the understanding all along.

to that warm reception with Gadaffi, one phrase kept running through my head.

A target rich environment!