Talking heads are justifying the Middle Eastern War MK3 on the basis of Libyan involvement in Lockerbie. “What involvement?” You might ask. Good on you for asking! Bill O’Reilly, that most gaseous of bullfrogs, is demanding “payback” for the bombings while the Liberal Ed Schultz asks us to “look at the tape…of flight Pan Am 103” and cries, “Do you need any more evidence?” Er, yes – you can’t work out who gunned down JFK from the Zapruder film, nor who shot J.R. from the momentous episode. Rambling on, Schultz tells us that Gaddafi has “[n]ever proven his innocence”. I think you’ve got that backwards, E-Man.

David Cameron has made use of with this motif as well. Bulking up the claim that “taking action in Libya is in our national interests” he’s proffered the dark suggestion that, “The people of Lockerbie, 100 miles from here, know what [Gaddafi] is capable of.” As this was delivered to a Tory conference I rather think that – as with Bill O’ to his cantakerous fans – he was grasping for justification that transcends concern for Libyans – lots of folk remain unbothered – and stokes the paranoia of the parochial.

This is crooked on more levels than the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Vile as the malformed Mickey Rourke of the Maghreb may be, if he poses a threat to us why was the government so friendly with him? And, besides, while his credentials as a terrorist look sound there’s no good evidence against him or any other Libyan where the Pan Am bomb’s concerned. That’s not to say it wasn’t them – as far as I’m aware it could have been – but we’re not justified in merely presuming guilt. I wrote earlier that this conflict is no Iraq (as notes of optimism go this was a bit like claiming that a race is safer than Le Mans, circa 1955). Still, this could have potential as its “Saddam Hussein is linked to al-Qaeda”.

Robert Black will keep up with developments, I’m sure.