Yesterday, the noise machine's nonsense scandal du jour was that the Obama administration supposedly “supported” the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Fox News' Dana Perino, FoxNews.com, Drudge, and several conservative bloggers hyped the story, with the always-unhinged Pam Geller going so far as to call for a “special investigation” and a “charge of treason.” Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama “backed the release,” because he “wanted to make nice with the Muslim world.” As we pointed out at the time, reports indicated that the administration opposed the release of the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds, but stipulated that if he were to be released, he should go to Scotland, and not to Libya.

Predictably, the story has continued to disintegrate. Yesterday, The State Department released its correspondence with the Scottish Ministry of Justice, which states in no uncertain terms that the administration “is not prepared to support Megrahi's release on compassionate release or bail,” and that “it would be most appropriate for Megrahi to remain imprisoned for the entirety of his sentence.”

Responding to the release of the letter in a post headlined “Two Cheers For The Administration On Megrahi,” PowerLine's John Hinderaker states that this story is a “non-controversy in which the State Department and the Obama administration acted honorably and appropriately.”

Despite the letter from the State Department clearly demolishing this non-scandal, some conservative bloggers just won't give up the ghost. Undeterred (as usual) by reality, Jim Hoft responded to the letter by announcing in a headline that the administration “Preferred [Lockerbie Bomber's] Release.” This serves as more evidence that Hoft either does not bother to read the things he links to, or that his deranged hatred of the administration is such that it leads him state with a straight face that up is down.

Even more embarrassing than Hoft's post was this inane screed by RedState's Lori Ziganto about how Obama “can't seem to man up.” This was posted after the release of the letter, yet completely ignored its existence:

I don't know if it is because President Obama is used to Michelle wearing the hideous pants in the family, but he can't seem to man up. At all. His lack of ability to make firm decisions, ever, is putting us all in further harm's way. It is also emboldening terrorists - Good grief, man! I am more of a strategist and a gutsy man than you are and I cry at commercials!

I'll spell it out for President Obama, even though I'm lacking a super smart Harvard degree: You do not negotiate with terrorists. Nor do you negotiate for their release, regardless of what you insanely deem 'preferable'. Preferable should not have been an option.

You should have insisted on neither. That is your job, as the leader of the free world and as President of the United States. I suggest you stop with all your fancy pants trips, your constant photo opps, including relaxingrounds of golf, and your ridiculous, worthless “summits” and start creating or saving some damn Leadership.

In part due to your utter incompetence, lack of leadership and failure to do anything but half-heartedly vote present - too busy demonizing those pesky tea partiers, I suppose - Al-Megrahi, an evil, murderous terrorist served just over 11 days per murder. He was freed to die in the loving bosom of his family - which, by the way, he seems to be refusing to do and may now live another ten years. His innocent victims? Meh. Their lives weren't worth more than 11 days each, huh?

I'll continue to empathize (the real kind, not the fake Obama kind) with the families of the victims. The victims were innocent people who did not “die with compassion”. Instead, they died in terror and horrific pain. And they did so without being able to have so much as a “good-bye” to their loved ones.

In Obama's world-view, the “compassionate release” of the man who murdered them is preferable. In mine, not so much.

I'm sure Ziganto will be updating with a retraction any minute now.