Riffhard wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2009 at 9:35am:

You're goddam right Riffy.  Hey, there is now mounting evidence that George Walker Bush III was really one of those secular humanils.  I got a ton of it spreadsheeted, and internally cross-verified for comprehensive self-veracity.  I can post it here or PM it to you, if you desire. 

You got to admit, at least Obam is getting god and faithism back into goverment as Him was intended.  That goddam George Walker Bush III failed miserably with his half-ass faith based initiatives.  And he's going to be sorry when Him come calling.

OOOohhhh graphics!!!




Looks to me like way more of my money goes to entitlements.

Get Ready Obamaites.......you will be seeing more of this.....


Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group
By Robert F. Worth

Friday, January 23, 2009
BEIRUT: The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order that President Barack Obama signed that the detention center be shut down within a year.

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by a U.S. counterterrorism official. "They're one and the same guy," said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. "He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear."

The development came as Republican legislators criticized the plan to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in the absence of any measures for dealing with current detainees. But it also helps explain why the new administration wants to move cautiously, taking time to work out a plan to cope with the complications.

Almost half the camp's remaining detainees are Yemenis, and efforts to repatriate them depend in part on the creation of a Yemeni rehabilitation program - financed in part by the United States - similar to the Saudi one. The Saudi government has claimed that no graduate of its program has returned to terrorism.

"The lesson here is: Whoever receives former Guantánamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them," the U.S. official said.

Although the Pentagon has said that dozens of released Guantánamo detainees have "returned to the fight," its claim is difficult to document and has been met with skepticism. In any case, few of the former detainees, if any, are thought to have joined the leadership of a major terrorist organization like Al Qaeda in Yemen, a mostly homegrown group that experts say has been reinforced lately by an infusion of foreign fighters.

Long considered a haven for jihadists, Yemen, a desperately poor country in the southern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, has witnessed a rising number of deadly attacks over the past year. U.S. officials say they suspect that Shihri may have been involved in the double car bombings outside the U.S. Embassy in Sana on Sept. 16 that killed 16 people, including six of the attackers.

In the Internet statement, Al Qaeda in Yemen identified its new deputy leader as Abu Sayyaf al-Shihri, saying he returned from Guantánamo to his native Saudi Arabia and then traveled to neighboring Yemen "more than 10 months ago." That corresponds roughly to the return of Shihri, a Saudi who was released from Guantánamo in November 2007.

"Abu Sayyaf" is a nom de guerre, commonly used among jihadists in place of their real name or first name.

A Saudi security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Shihri had disappeared from his home in Saudi Arabia last year after finishing the rehabilitation program.

A Yemeni journalist who interviewed Al Qaeda's leaders in Yemen last year, Abdulela Shaya, confirmed Thursday that the deputy leader was indeed Shihri, the former Guantánamo detainee. Shaya, in a telephone interview, said Shihri had described to him his journey from Cuba to Yemen and supplied his Guantánamo detention number, 372. That is the correct number, Pentagon documents show.

"It seems certain from all the sources we have that this is the same individual who was released from Guantánamo in 2007," said Gregory Johnsen, a terrorism analyst and the editor of a forthcoming book, "Islam and Insurgency in Yemen."

Shihri, 35, trained in urban warfare tactics at a camp north of Kabul, Afghanistan, according to documents released by the Pentagon as part of his Guantánamo dossier. Two weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he traveled to Afghanistan via Bahrain and Pakistan, and later he told American investigators that his intention was to do relief work, the documents say. He was wounded in an airstrike and spent a month and a half recovering in a hospital in Pakistan.

The documents state that Shihri met with a group of "extremists" in Iran and helped them get into Afghanistan. They also say he was accused of trying to arrange the assassination of a writer, in accordance with a fatwa, or religious order, issued by an extremist cleric.

However, under a heading describing reasons for Shihri's possible release from Guantánamo, the documents say he claimed that he traveled to Iran "to purchase carpets for his store in Riyadh." They also say that he denied any knowledge of terrorists or association with any, and that he "related that if released, he would like to return to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, wherein he would reunite with his family."

"The detainee stated he would attempt to work at his family's furniture store if it is still in business," the documents said.

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, Khalid al-Hammadi

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=19626487

Just curious where all the liberal outrage is regarding Obama's authorization of the drone strike in Pakistan that killed some children yesterday.

I mean, he is the President now, right?
OMG Bombs!!?
More than one??
Inside another nation's border?
No permission?
Children killed?

Shouldn't someone be organizing a march on Washington?

"Look whitey, this ain't no time for questions"

Here's an interesting one too.

Even tho Obammy signed an Exec Order to close Gitmo in a year (not quite day one, but hey, there are complications), and to stop harsh interrogations, the order is apparently full of holes:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 (UPI) -- U.S. policy on accused terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, likely won't deviate much from its current form, a review of documents indicates.

President Barack Obama signed an executive order Thursday directing the detention camp be closed within the year. However, Politico reported the effect of that order and an order effectively banning the use of torture could be blunted.

Obama also signed an order directing that all agencies follow the Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners who could be terror suspects, the Washington publication said.

He also inked a directive creating an interagency commission to examine whether to develop "additional or different guidance" for non-military agencies such as the CIA, which could potentially permit harsh interrogation techniques in the future.

Matthew Waxman, who worked on detention matters for the State Department during the Bush administration, said Obama's decision keep open the possibility of different guidance for CIA interrogators is a good one.

"I've worked on drafts of the Army Field Manual," Waxman said. "It's designed to be in the hands of tens of thousands of people who may not have a lot of training or supervision."

Another provision of Obama's orders called for military tribunals at Guantanamo to be "halted," but the administration wouldn't rule out reconsidering some sort of military forum to deal with some of the prisoners, Politico said.

"This order does not eliminate or extinguish the military commissions, it just stays all proceedings in connection with the ongoing proceedings in Guantanamo," White House council Greg Craig said, making clear that "improved military commissions" were still on the table.

At this time of sacrifice, hope, change, and all the other bullshit liberal platitudes I feel that this quote from Ayn Rand is rather prophetic.


"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." - Ayn Rand


Obama is asking for our service and sacrifice. Rand nails it here. Too bad the drones have no sense of their own individual liberty, or ability to self govern. Obama is the all knowing. Only he knows how we should live our lives. And some people actually believe this claptrap! It's stunning in it's pure ignorance.

Riffy

Riffhard wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 8:04pm:

Coming soon?  It's already here.  I told you Barack would win big.

Brainy

Brainbell Jangler wrote on Jan 21^st, 2009 at 12:14am:


Finally got a chance to watch.
Very cool BJ.
Nice to put a face with a "name".
You look mucher younger than you claim to be.

LJ.

1990?!!
No wonder you are so proud. Longtime supporter.
I can respect that.
I wish him luck.

LJ.

Brainbell Jangler wrote on Jan 24^th, 2009 at 2:16am:

Good action there Brainbell!

sirmoonie wrote on Jan 24^th, 2009 at 9:23am:


it's the dirty conservative media. they gave him all the breaks in the world!

Starbuck wrote on Jan 24^th, 2009 at 11:34am:

They sure the fuck gave him a goddam break on that one.  Jesus fucking Christ, this is outrageous!

At best, gross incompetence.  At worst, aiding and abetting the enemy, Al Quada.  Christ, on its fucking face its aiding and abetting Al Quada.  Al Quada was AFFIRMATIVELY aided by George Walker Bush III.  Abetted too.

What kind of fucking retard would do such a thing?  Why aren't people calling for his head?  There's a fucking War on Terror going on, and George Walker Bush III releases terrorists?  WTF????

Why hasn't he been denounced here on RO?  Do we need a poll to ferretalize out who is with us and who is against us?    

Sadly, once again, I'm left to lead the way in denouncing un-American activity.

Riffhard wrote on Jan 24^th, 2009 at 11:47am:

Agreed.  You can read a boatload into what people don't respond to.  Boat ass fucking load.

I'm not a "liberal" under my vague understanding of the term, I don't know who those two people you mentioned are, and don't know what they said.  But my guess is that the reason you have not received any responses is because the Constitutionality of laws aimed at tax rates or laws that disproportionally affect a particular class of citizens is a very complex issue, and whatever "liberals" there are here are probably as clueless as you are about the issue.  

Also, your earlier request for responses/arguments based on preamble language in the Declaration of Independence may have confused the fuck out of people, as it did me.  If you can post a link to where you cribbed the 10th amendment or "inalienable rights" theories you referenced, that tries to explain them better, I can try to comment.  Broad concepts/characterizations like "wealth re-distribution" or "social engineering" are not de facto un-Constitutional in any way that I am aware of, since every law ever written accomplishes that to some degree.

Another reason the "liberals" might have failed to respond would be if the statements you are interested in were about progressive tax rates or affirmative action.  That stuff got decided erroneously decades ago, and its hardly anything new.  Ask George Walker Bush III, he didn't do jack about either one.  So its hardly the issue de jour, and focusing on it now as if it were some unheard of colossal shift in government policy is goofy.  Moreover, its hardly worth even noting that a president who is a product of affirmative action is going to be for it nor, as you constantly assert, would those who voted for Obama be unaware of such an obvious fact.  They are either stupidly in favor of it, or more likely don't care because of its relative nonimportance in a day where former socialist presidents are fucked up enough to release captured terrorists.

Those are just my guesses as to the silence of the liberals.