Flopping Aces - 5 new articles

 

Here are the latest updates for hunthunt2006.search2055@blogger.com "Flopping Aces" - 5 new articles Britain shows us the way….OBL's "right-hand man in Europe" released from jail Obama - The September 10th Candidate The Iraq SOFAs and the SCOTUS opinion New York Times: Obama Is a Girlie Man [Reader Post] President Bush's 2008 European Tour: A Pictorial of the Trip More Recent Articles Search Flopping Aces Britain shows us the way….OBL's "right-hand man in Europe" released from jail It’s an eerie feeling reading this…  the pit of the belly says this just may be a reverse de ja vu.  Here’s the story in a nutshell, as told by Duncan Gardham and Gordon Rayner from London’s The Telegraph: Justice Mitting signs a bail release for Abu Qatada because he had no prior criminal record in the British courts, and could not be deported for his Jordan retrial for possible breach of law under the European Convention on Human Rights. While he’s sitting at home, wearing his fashionable electronic tag, he’ll be collecting £12,000 per year in benefits for he and his family, plus cost the state annually tens of thousands of pounds for protection. Oh yes, among the visitors he is NOT allowed to entertain personally, or via phone contact, are Osama bin Laden, his Deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Hamza. [CORRECTION:  Article doesn't mention phone or email correspondence]   RTFA to see the rest of the “strict” house rules…. plus more on their due process getting in the way of old fashioned common sense. It appears the Brits… none of them… are bully over this quandary of their own making.  Imagine that? Despite Tony Blair's promise in the aftermath of the suicide bombings on July 7, 2005 that "the rules of the game have changed", no terror suspects have yet been forcibly removed from the country. Last night Jacqui Smith said: "The Government's priority is to protect public safety and national security and we will take all steps necessary to do so. "I am extremely disappointed that the courts have granted Abu Qatada bail, albeit with very strict conditions. I am appealing to the House of Lords to reverse the decision that it is not safe to deport Qatada and the other Jordanian cases." Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary, said Qatada's presence in the UK was "offensive" and called for him to be prosecuted in this country, while Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said the government's terrorism policies were "not working". There by the grace of our SCOTUS, go us….   Technorati Tags: Add new tag • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • Obama - The September 10th Candidate Yesterday the messiah uttered these brilliant words: And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. Whoa…where to start? First, this kind of mindset is what helped cause 9/11 in the first place. al-Qaeda sat and watched as we fooled around with arresting a few people and then washed our hands of the whole terrorism threat until the next attack occurred. Khobar happened and what did we do? Try to treat it as a law enforcement issue. The African embassies? Same thing….as well as the Cole. Oh sure, Clinton would send a few missiles into Afghanistan or bomb a aspirin factory to try to at least “look” like he was doing something about the threat (while alleging Saddam had ties to the factory that AQ used to produce chemical weapons to boot….GASP! Saddam had ties to AQ? No way!) but in the end Osama and pals viewed us as weak. And with that kind of leadership we were. They didn’t count on a strong leader to change the way this country does business like George W. Bush. Thank god. Oh, and lets not forget that the criminal trial led to the disclosure through discovery that we were listening to Osama. We all know happened after that. And now our Supreme Court says the same enemy must have access to our courts and the same kind of discovery. Mind boggling stupidity and Obama loves it. Secondly we have to look at this part of Obama’s statement: we were able to arrest those responsible Wrongo boyo! Jim Geraghty sets him straight and wouldn’t you know it….it involved Iraq once again: No, not all of them. Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi native, was twice interrogated by the FBI and then allowed to walk away a free man. He fled the United States in the days after that attack and returned, with the assistance of officials at the Iraqi embassy in Amman, Jordan, to Baghdad. He lived openly in Baghdad with his father and a neighbor interviewed in 1994 by an ABC News/Newsweek investigative team told the reporters that he was working for the Iraqi regime. There are conflicting reports about how Saddam Hussein treated Yasin after these reports were made public, with some documentation suggesting the Iraqis were holding him under some form of house arrest and other documents that seem to indicate he was being actively harbored — given housing and living allowances — by Saddam Hussein’s regime. What is not in dispute, however, is that Saddam Hussein’s intelligence services helped Yasin return to Iraq mere days after he helped orchestrate the 1993 World Trade Center attack. According to the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report on Prewar Intelligence (signed by all of the panel’s Democrats): “Abdul Rahman Yasin, a fugitive from the attack, is of Iraqi descent, and in 1993, he fled to Iraq with Iraqi assistance.” Beyond the fact that Obama seems to have been unaware of Yasin’s flight and the role Saddam Hussein’s regime played in it is his odd embrace of law enforcement as the proper way to treat terrorists. It’s as if he wasn’t paying attention in the 1990s. Oh, he was paying attention. From the pews of the Trinity church as the pastor told him that these attacks were all our fault anyways. Now this part of his statement is downright funny: we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims. Whoakay….. I think Allah tackles this well: Is he so naive as to seriously believe wacko jihadis draw some huge distinction between the legitimacy of Gitmo and the legitimacy of district court trials? Exit quotation from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: "I cannot accept any attorney who is not governed by sharia [Islamic] law. I will represent myself. I will not be represented by anybody even if he is a Muslim, because he will be sworn to your American Constitution. I consider all the U.S. Constitution and laws evil. They are allowing for same-sexual marriages and many things that are very bad … Do you understand what I said?" This is so obviously not about preventing terrorist attacks for Obama. This is about making himself and this country look good to those who hate us. Our nations security be damned. McCain smelled blood with this ignorant comment from Obama and wasted no time: "Barack Obama's belief that we should treat terrorists as nothing more than common criminals demonstrates a stunning and alarming misunderstanding of the threat we face from radical Islamic extremism. Obama holds up the prosecution of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 as a model for his administration, when in fact this failed approach of treating terrorism simply as a matter of law enforcement rather than a clear and present danger to the United States contributed to the tragedy of September 11th. This is change that will take us back to the failed policies of the past and every American should find this mindset troubling." Right on target. How does Obama respond? By trying to take some of it back: My quote, the point I was making and I've made before, is without giving full blown rights to those who are being held, we can set up a system of due process, and when I said that the administration didn't even try to do that, what I have consistently said is that rather than figure out how do we effectively hold these folks, detain them, provide them with some due process, try them, lock them up, the administration decided to take a bunch of short cuts."… "We don't have to treat them in the same way that we would treat a criminal suspect in the U.S., but we should abide by the Geneva conventions. We should at least follow through on the same principals we followed though when dealing with Nazis during Nuremburg, that is not only the right thing to do but it also actually will strengthen our ability over the long term to fight terrorism." Asked by Richard Wolffe of Newsweek what he would suggest be done with detainees, Obama said "we can lock them up in military facilities on U.S. soil in the same way that we locked them up in Gitmo. The reason we set up Gitmo is because the administration wanted to set up a black hole where there was no accountability whatsoever… "It does not have to be before a U.S. district court," Obama said, "but if we provided some modicum of due process, we can have confidence that we've got the right people, that we're not wasting time on the wrong people. We can send a message to the world that we continue to abide by the standards of rule of law, and we can actually be more effective in our pursuit of terrorism." Um, it was Congress that set up the trial process, the same Congress he is currently in. Not the Administration. Also, the Supreme Court just ruled it DOES have to be before a U.S. district court…..did he not get the memo? Be that it may, would you call this a flip? Or a flop? I call it ignorance. And dangerous ignorance at that. More here. • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • The Iraq SOFAs and the SCOTUS opinion Possibly one of the best, and most honest overviews of the Iraq SOFA negotiations comes from Omar Fadhil in his article today at the Long War Journal.   Unlike most news outlets that state their content with such conviction, Fadhil points out that understanding each of the factions beefs is especially difficult since little about the negotiation specifics are known at this time to *any* one. Or, as he puts it, the details “are rarely shared beyond the closed circle of the executive branches in Washington and Baghdad, leaving lawmakers in both countries in the dark for now. Personally, I think this is wise because too many voices prior to hammering out a starting point draft is anything but productive.  Despite the lack of details, there are varying levels of acceptance and rejection for what basics they do know. And knowing these objections is valuable for even the first SOFA draft. Oddly enough, there are only two groups with an absolute no-compomise/reject attitude. That would be the  Association of Muslim scholars, and Sadr’s clan. The Muslim scholars are Sunni clerics, formed in April 2003 after the fall of Saddam to unite the Sunni ulema, the highest Iraq sunni authorities. Their historic sympathies lie with Saddam’s old regime and AQ. However the AMSI has found their support by Sunnis significantly diminishing since “the awakening” of tribal leaders, and perhaps had their biggest setback last November when Sheikh Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al Samarrai, the leader of the Sunni Religious Endowments (more clerics…) ordered the closure of the AMSI headquarters in the Umm al Quraa mosque. As reported by Bill Roggio in the Long War Journal: The crackdown on the Association of Muslim Scholars is part of the efforts of Sunni scholars to delegitimize the religious support given to al Qaeda in Iraq and other radical Islamic extremist groups in Iraq. The creation of the Council of Iraqi Scholars, or Council of Ulema of Iraq, has led the way in alienating the radical clerics. The Council of Iraqi Scholars was formed in early April 2007 after over 60 senior Sunni clerics gathered in Amman, Jordan. The religious leaders sought to wrest control of the religious edicts, or fatwas, issued by the radical clerics in the Association of Muslim Scholars. Sheikh Abdul Malik al Saadi, Iraq’s preeminent Sunni scholar, leads the council. Samarrai is also an influential member and acts as the council’s spokesman. Likewise, Sadr’s having a hard time generating enough protesters against the SOFA negotiations. From Fadhil’s article today: Earlier crowds are estimated to be in the thousands. The most recent public protest in Karbala was, according to The Associated Press, attended by "hundreds." Protests in Sadr City, the bastion of the Mahdi Army, drew 1,500 protesters last Friday. With the two “naysayers” losing support, and basically out of the way, this brings us to the majority who agree a SOFA is necessary in some form. Last week, two Iraqi Assembly members traveled to DC and addressed Congress. Khalaf Ilayan, a leader of one of the three components of the Accord Front, favors waiting until the new POTUS sits in the Oval Office. His peer, Nadeem Jabiri of the Islamic Fadheela Party, concerns himself with Iraq “sovereignty”, and their practical progress as a bureaucratic body. “The Iraqi government right now still does not have full rein of its sovereignty because of the thousands of foreign troops now on its land. … And perhaps the Iraqi government does not have yet sufficient tools to run its own internal affairs. Therefore I ask the American government not to embarrass the Iraqi government (by) putting it in a difficult situation with this agreement.” Both observations, IMHO, have merit. And indeed, despite the ill-timing of the December 2008 expiration of the UN mandate,  it may be premature to lock in such long term specifics while the pieces on the chess board are moving. Not only will there be a new POTUS, but even more importantly, Iraq has provincial elections coming up. The Sunni bloc membership is apt to have a significant profile change… and most likely for the better as Sunni leadership from the awakening movement are strong shoe ins. But I’m not posting to discuss what we don’t know on the negotiations, or their not-so-convenient timing. What I want to do is remind everyone of the common thread here - the very important link between these upcoming SOFAs and our recent SCOTUS opinion. Or more succinctly put, the agreed to sovereignty of our Iraq bases affects the detention, rights and protections of any combatants the US harbors there. And last, but not least, that agreement will also affect the rights and protections of our US soldiers and support civilian contractors. Sounds familiar now, don’t it? While we don’t have details, Iraqis discussing yielding sovereignty as a point of contention may infer that US bases in Iraq are demanding sovereignty as a preferred contractual point. If that is the case, as SCOTUS has ruled, Habeas Corpus and combatants with Constitutional rights leers it’s head yet again. If no sovereignty, what of  our own troops?  Will they (and the support civilian contractors) will be subject to the many harsh Saddam regime laws still on the books?  Will US military and American citizens find themselves in front of Iraq judges for crimes considered un Islamic? If the Pentagon has got a clue… they’ll demand the sovereignty for our guys, but won’t be holding any of the bad guys (who’ll race for their attorneys upon arrest) at that location. In short, the SCOTUS decision has had the over reaching effect to limit some aspects and useage of these proposed US temporary bases in Iraq.  This recent reality may  dictate  some new concerns in terms for these SOFAs. Put your imagination in fast forward… landing after the musical chairs of Iraq Assembly and POTUS leadership. Assuming we get a friendlier Sunni bloc after provincial elections, which POTUS will be defining the SOFA demands for US interests? Certainly if McCain wins, he has already said he supports bases there for as long as the Iraqis needs and mission demands. But what are his ideas of terms for these bases? McCain was appalled with this SCOTUS opinion. Does he know how these SOFAs can mirror the same problem if not structured correctly? And what of Obama, and his ever morphing stance? (see Curt’s “Once Before, and Again and Again” post) Will BHO be taking this SOFA agreement into consideration for soldiers, detainees and contractors? If there is no agreement, and the UN mandate isn’t renewed, what happens then? Does BHO pull us out immediately, saying any Iraq failures are not his fault because the agreement wasn’t hammered out in time? I’d say it’s about time for some bright lightbulb reporter to begin hounding Obama *and* McCain on some real Iraq specifics… like this SOFA agreement… and their idea of needed terms in a post-Boumediene opinion world.  It’s not enough to say “no permanent bases”, because we’re already quite outspoken in the fact the bases are not permanent. What begs to be asked is how can this SOFA best be constructed to provide protections to our American soldiers and civilians, without giving the same to captured combatants? This oughta be good…   I’m dying to hear their answers because I’m not sure that both can be accomplished.  And if one has to be sacrificed, which will it be?  • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • New York Times: Obama Is a Girlie Man [Reader Post] This would make his dad proud. The New York Times does a piece on how much of a wuss Obama is and they think they are doing him a favor. Sometimes you have to get on your knees and be thankful that the Left says stuff for which the Right would be crucified, and then the Right gets to beat them over the head with it and thank them for the pull quotes. From a New York Times Op-Ed, via the inimitable Moe Lane at RedState, 2008 is the election of the Girlie-Man v. John Wayne. For months, our political punditry foresaw one, and only one, prospective gender contest looming in the general election: between the first serious female presidential candidate and the Republican male "warrior." But those who were dreading a plebiscite on sexual politics shouldn't celebrate just yet. Hillary Clinton may be out of the race, but a Barack Obama versus John McCain match-up still has the makings of an epic American gender showdown. The reason is a gender ethic that has guided American politics since the age of Andrew Jackson. The sentiment was succinctly expressed in a massive marble statue that stood on the steps of the United States Capitol from 1853 to 1958. Named "The Rescue," but more commonly known as "Daniel Boone Protects His Family," the monument featured a gigantic white pioneer in a buckskin coat holding a nearly naked Indian in a death's grip, while off to the side a frail white woman crouched over her infant. The question asked by this American Sphinx to all who dared enter the halls of leadership was, "Are you man enough?" This year, Senator Obama has notably refused to give the traditional answer. Obama apparently comes up lacking as the hero in this tale. Geez, what was their first clue? How about a foreign policy where we “talk” to enemies that would destroy us rather than taking them on. The Times is not exactly bolstering his macho credentials with stuff like this. Senator Obama, for his part, will not be cast as the avenging hero in "The Rescue" any time soon — and not because of the color of his skin or his lack of military experience. He doesn't seem to want the role. You don't see him crouching in a duck blind or posing in camouflage duds or engaging in anything more gladiatorial than a game of pick-up basketball. If Mr. Obama's candidacy seeks to move beyond race, it also moves beyond gender. A 20-minute campaign Web documentary showcased a President Obama who would exude "a real sensitivity" and "empathy" and provide a world safe for the American mother's son. Mr. Obama is surrounded in the video by pacifist — not security — moms. Pacifist? Is that what we’re looking for? But the Times is on a roll. And when they are rolling over their own guy, you’ve got to get out of the way. Here’s the money quote. "In many ways, he really will be the first woman president," Megan Beyer of Virginia, a charter member of Women for Obama, told reporters. An op-ed essay in The New York Post headlined "Bam: Our 1st Woman Prez?" came to a similar conclusion, if a tad more snidely: "Those shots of Barack and Michelle sitting with Oprah on stools had the feel of a smart, all-women talk panel." The First Woman President. Nice. I’m thinking The Times will be getting a call from Obama’s Anti-Smear Squad, for calling their guy a cupcake. Hmmm, if they don’t call, does that make it true? And apparently those mean, homophobic Republicans are not the only ones who don’t like effeminate male presidents. The lefties in the MSM are joining in too. News media blatherers and bloggers are taking up the theme. On MSNBC, Tucker Carlson called Mr. Obama "kind of a wuss"; Joe Scarborough, the morning TV talk show host, dubbed Mr. Obama's bowling style "prissy" and declared, "Americans want their president, if it's a man, to be a real man"; and Don Imus, the radio host, never one to be outdone in the sexual slur department, dubbed Mr. Obama a "sissy boy." According to the New York Times, maybe they are right. Technorati Tags: barack obama, Effeminate, election, First Woman President, Girlie Man, John McCain, Macho, New York Times, President, Sissy, Susan Faludi • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • President Bush's 2008 European Tour: A Pictorial of the Trip So many opportunities to work with our allies to solve problems! President Bush’s European tour didn’t get much coverage. But it was an important trip. It gave the President to meet one on one with a number of our key friends and allies as well as participate in the EU-US Summit and other events. Aside from the pomp of a Presidential tour, there was much substance as our allies are converging on the question of how to deal with Iran’s refusal to halt uranium enrichment and to review the progress and challenges ahead in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Like any great trip to Europe, the story is best told in photographs…. President George W. Bush speaks to the media before departing the South Lawn of the White House for Andrews Air Force Base en route to Europe for a weeklong visit during which he will address a variety of issues with counterparts in Slovenia, Germany, Italy, Vatican City, France and the United Kingdom. Said the President, “The U.S. economy has continued to grow in the face of unprecedented challenges. We got to keep our economies flexible; both the U.S. economy and European economies need to be flexible in order to deal with today’s challenges. I’m looking forward to my trip…” White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian Mrs. Bush had left for Europe before the President and stopped in Afghanistan on the way: Mrs. Laura Bush is greeted Sunday, June 8, 2008, by New Zealand troops performing a traditional warrior dance at the Bamiyan Provincial Reconstruction Team Base in Afghanistan's Bamiyan province. Standing with her is Major Justin de la Haye. White House photo by Shealah Craighead President George W. Bush walks through an honor cordon with Prime Minister Janez Jansa of Slovenia after arriving Monday, June 9, 2008, at Ljubljana International Airport on the first stop of his European visit. White House photo by Eric Draper President George W. Bush, center, participates in a meeting with European Union Leaders Tuesday, June 10, 2008, at the Brdo Congress Centre in Kranj, Slovenia. President Bush is joined by US Special envoy for European Affairs, C. Boyden Gray, to the President’s right, and United States Ambassador to Slovenia, Yousif B. Ghafari, second to the President’s right. Riders guide Lipizzaner stallions through their paces during an exhibition attended by President George W. Bush and Laura Bush, Tuesday, June 10, 2008, at Brdo Castle in Kranj, Slovenia. White House photo by Eric Draper President George W. Bush and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel take part in a joint press availability Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at Schloss Meseberg in Meseberg, Germany. White House photo by Eric Draper MESEBERG, GERMANY - JUNE 11: German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. President George W. Bush walk in the garden at Schloss Meseberg Palace on the second day of Bush’s visit to Germany on June 11, 2008 in Meseberg, about 30 kilometers north of Berlin, Germany. Bush is on a two-day visit to Germany as part of his last presidential trip to Europe. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images) President George W. Bush waves from Air Force One as he arrives at Ciampino International Airport Wednesday, June 11, 2008, in Rome. White House photo by Eric Draper President George W. Bush participates in a joint press availability with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi Thursday, June 12, 2008, at the Villa Madama in Rome. White House photo by Eric Draper President George W. Bush and Laura Bush present Pope Benedict XVI with a framed photograph Friday, June 13, 2008, during their visit to the Vatican. The photo shows President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI together at the White House during the Pope’s visit in April. White House photo by Shealah Craighead President George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush join Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State, Vatican, as they watch a performance by The Pontifical Sistine Choir Friday, June 13, 2008, in the Lourdes Grotto at the Vatican. White House photo by Eric Draper President George W. Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy spend a few moments together talking during a sculpture unveiling Saturday, June 14, 2008 at the U.S. Ambassador’s residence in Paris. White House photo by Eric Draper President George W. Bush is flanked by two U.S. World War II Veterans during wreath-laying ceremonies Saturday, June 14, 2008, at the Suresnes American Cemetery and Memorial in Paris. White House photo by Chris Greenberg US first lady Laura Bush (C) visits French painter Claude Monet’s gardens with Debbie Stapleton (R), wife of US Ambassador to France, and Monet’s expert Claire Toulgouat on June 14, 2008 in Giverny, western France. French President Nicolas Sarkozy meets his US counterpart George W. Bush at Elysee palace in Paris on June 14, 2008. AFP PHOTO ROBERT FRANCOIS (Photo credit should read ROBERT FRANCOIS/AFP/Getty Images) Marine One carrying President George W. Bush and Laura Bush lands at Windsor Castle Sunday, June 15, 2008 in Windsor, England, where President Bush and Mrs. Bush met with Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh Prince Phillip. White House photo by Eric Draper President George W. Bush and Laura Bush visit with Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh Prince Phillip in St. George’s Hall at WIndsor Castle in Windsor, England. White House photo by Eric Draper On at least two stops on the President’s trip professional protesters showed up. Though why anyone thinks that a guy who looks like a terrorist protesting Bush is a good idea is beyond me. This guy was outside Windsor Castle. Fortunately, there was good security (see below). Not your usual British “Bobbie” After tea with the Queen, the Bush’s took the car out for a spin and stopped in to see the Prime Minister at #10 Downing Street: President George W. Bush waves to members of the media as he and Laura Bush are met by British Prime Minster Gordon Brown and his wife, Sarah, on their arrival Sunday, June 15, 2008 to 10 Downing Street in London. White House photo by Chris Greenberg Walking up the stairs to Prime Minister Brown’s office President Bush passes by the portraits of former Prime Ministers including that of Margaret Thatcher in the upper right hand corner. President George W. Bush is joined by Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson, left, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness as they meet with reporters Monday, June 16. 2008, following their meeting at Stormont Castle in Belfast, Northern Ireland. White House photo by Chris Greenberg • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • View comments • Track comments • • More Recent Articles Liberals Changing Their Views On Iraq? Obama Writes Off Florida and Ohio: Concedes Must Win Some Republican States [Reader Post] McCain Wants to Lift Ban On Offshore Drilling! [Reader Post] Andy McCarthy - Congress Must Act To Fix Boumediene Iran Rejects "Carrot" of Six Nation Incentives to Stop Uranium Enrichment

---

Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Flopping Aces" or change subscription settings

---

 

---

Unsubscribe from all current and future newsletters powered by FeedBlitz

---

Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498