More proof that our addiction to foreign oil helps the terrorists

OK, in this case it's actually Great Britain's addiction to foreign oil, but we all face the same issue:

The British government decided it was "in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom" to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown's government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

There are other ways to show "compassion" to a cancer-stricken convicted mass killer short of releasing him to his home country as a free man receiving a hero's welcome; I agree with the many who believe that al-Megrahi's recent release was a weak and cowardly act. But very much like the drug problem here in the United States involving our neighbors from Mexico on south, you won't solve the problem until you address the "demand" as well as the "supply."

Because the West is so dependent on oil from unstable Middle Eastern nations, Gordon Brown clearly made a decision here that the long-term consquences for the United Kingdom of not doing this deal -- amid the threat of diminished oil supplies and higher gasoline prices (not to mention the economic good fortunes of British Petroleum) -- outweighed the short-term political fallout of releasing a convicted terrorist. Bad as that is, it's still not as bad as invading an entire nation (that would be Iraq) to ensure a large American troop presence in the world's oil-producing region. Either way, the sooner that America, Great Britain and our allies turn toward conservation and alternative sources of energy (and, yes, I personally would include safe nuclear power on that list), the fewer awful decisions like these will be made in the future.