Coming Fall 2009…

Bin Laden driver knew 9/11 target: prosecutor
Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:33am EDT
By Jim Loney

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden’s driver knew the target of the fourth hijacked jetliner in the September 11 attacks, a prosecutor said on Tuesday in an attempt to draw a link between Salim Hamdan and the al Qaeda leadership in the first Guantanamo war crimes trial.

Hamdan’s lawyer said in opening statements that the Yemeni, held for nearly seven years before his trial, was just a paid employee of the fugitive al Qaeda leader, a driver in the motor pool who never joined the militant group or plotted attacks on America.

But prosecutor Timothy Stone told the six-member jury of U.S. military officers who will decide Hamdan’s guilt or innocence that Hamdan had inside knowledge of the 2001 attacks on the United States because he overheard a conversation between bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

“If they hadn’t shot down the fourth plane it would’ve hit the dome,” Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.

The tribunal’s chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the “dome” was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.

“Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew,” Stone said.

United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania. U.S. officials have never stated it was shot down although rumors saying that abound to this day.

(My emphasis added.)

(H/T) Peter of LoneTree @ BlondSense.

Read.

Update: Video

McCain ‘08!

In this second part let me run through a few posts that have stuck with me over the last month, starting with one I alluded to in the beginning of the first part:

Caveat Emptor

…And this is how Obama has learned to win, eliminating people in primaries, which meant he has never faced a real opponent in a general election, because in Illinois lately, the Democratic primary is the election. Read the whole thing and learn how delegates are apportioned, and there is nothing vague democratic about it.
…
He uses the rules to eliminate competition in the Democratic primaries, but he is actually going to face real opposition in the general election, and he has never had to do that before. He is a machine politician, and nothing more.

Steve Bates of The Yellow Doggerel Democrat:

For Obama
- Or -
Dammit, Hillary, Go Home…

From the beginning of this election cycle, I have pledged to support the Democratic nominee. It is now clear that Barack Obama will be that nominee, and for all my reservations about the nominating process to this point, he is a most impressive candidate, and I support him wholeheartedly.

I am not a single-issue voter, but for family and personal reasons, my primary issue this year is healthcare. No issue affects me personally, no issue has affected my family over the past two decades, more than healthcare coverage. For that reason, I initially supported John Edwards until he withdrew. Then, in the Texas primary, I voted for and caucused for Hillary, largely because of her announced healthcare policy. Many pixels have been spilled over the differences between Obama’s and Hillary’s plans, but it seems to me they have become more similar over the course of the campaign, and Obama’s policy is vastly better than McSame’s policy: McLame’s advice may well be expressed as “be born into a wealthy family which additionally has had lifetime government-paid health care coverage.”

So we’re ready for the battle. Now if Hillary would just admit that she has lost…

(Post title amended for clarity after initial posting.)

Kvatch of Ragebot:

Hey…Clinton supporters?! Your bullsh*t, “…we’re gonna take all our marbles and go home,” attitude makes you sound about as mature as the Chimperor. For God’s sake, McCain is promising you 5 more years of war and another 3/4 quarters of a trillion dollars in debt. If you won’t vote your own interests, then at least vote your children’s. And remember, a vote for McCain is really a vote for his Vice President, and that could be Huckabee. Just chew on that for a minute.

And you…Obama supporters?! Do you really think your gonna convince the other side to make common cause with you when you treat their candidate with the kind of contempt you used to reserve for Bill O’Reilly? And all that haughty, “We’ve won, it’s time for the Clintonistas to just suck it up and get on board,” crap? Smacks of the same sense of entitlement that you’ve decried in Senator Clinton for a year now.

We’ve got a pretty easy choice in November, the Democratic nominee or Bush III. McCain won’t give back one iota of executive power. He won’t stem the rush to complete executive secrecy, and he won’t quit giving freebies to the corporatists, because, without those tools, he won’t be able to continue the war.

I should note that every one of us, Bryan, Steve, Kvatch, and myself, started out supporting John Edwards to some degree, and later moved into the Hillary or Obama’s camp (or no camp at all). There are two trends in thought here and they are what’s left to be reconciled for myself. I used Steve’s basic argument-knowingly or unknowingly–with Bryan, and it’s basically the same thing Kvatch said; We should vote for the Democrat no matter what, not just because the consequences of a McCain victory would be devastating for whats left of our country after 8 years of the worst pResident in American history, but because we should have some kind of faith in Democrats.

Well, after seeing the results of the Democratic party coming to power in 2006, I don’t roll like that anymore. That’s the other trend. I don’t know how to argue with Bryan to get him to change his mind because it’s to easy to acknowledge the truth of what he speaks of, the anti-democratic nature of machine politicians within the Democratic party. I have entered the House of the Culture Ghost and IOZ is in ascendancy.

To be continued…

Over at the Daily Kos they’re holding an all day symposium on “Why Clinton lost.” I have my own views on the matter; Bryan of “Why Now?” has his, but let me first highlight one of the most pervasively wrong reasons, as illustrated by Carl from Simply Left Behind:

…The most important outcome of your candidacy, perhaps it will be your Pyrrhic victory, is the acknowledgment, finally, that even the Democratic and Progressive movements are not fully free of misogyny. Just the comments at this blog alone demonstrate the hatred white men have towards you, but the Tennesee Guerilla Women can cite chapter and verse the hate spewed by the Obombersand their media co-horts.

Perhaps it’s not race that needs a dialogue, but how fully half the population can be so denied of their legitimacy by the other half.

When those two numbnuts in New Hampshire (I think) held up an “Iron My Shirt” sign, people laughed.

Imagine if that sign had said “Pick My Cotton” at an Obama rally?

There, right there, is why you lost, Mrs. Clinton. Despite your overwhelming qualifications for the Presidency, despite your dynamic and well-thought-out agenda for your administration, despite every piece of evidence that says Senator Obama will be a disaster in the White House, if not just the campaign trail, you were the butt of savage sexist jokes.

He was not the subject of savage racist jokes, at least none that were accepted in the mainstream media. Even his pitiful speech on race, which so many have touted as a watershed in American politics, ultimately did nothing to advance the cause of equality, because the Senator did not even repudiate those on his side of the colour line who spew hatred towards American. And white women, so amply demonstrated by the Rev. Pfleger.

Carl brings up a few different things that have more than a small measure of legitimacy, but they mostly get washed away by his other outrageous claims that have no basis in reality. There was sexism, misogyny, and racism all throughout this primary. But that’s not why Clinton lost nor why Obama won. People have sited various reasons for her loss; she had the wrong position on Iraq when it mattered most, her fundraising machine relied on big donors who maxed out their contributions quickly, the generational divide. All these reason have been, and will continue to be, mulled over for years to come. The media did what the media does. Bloggers did what bloggers do. It all comes back to the fact that Obama played it straight.

Set aside the rabid grassroots supporters, the bloggers, the media, various low level campaign advisers. At no time did Obama’s candidacy try to delegitimize Clinton’s in the ways that Clinton’s run tried to undercut Obama’s. The experience and electability question has been put to bed. The call for reconciliation and unity has been made by both camps in a real and compelling way. Time to move on.

To be continued…

Riffing of Randel and Ron Nasty’s posts…

Update: More “judgment” from John McCain

“Denver, Denver!”

My thanks to (clockwise from the top); Mark Penn, Bill Clinton, Harold Ickes, Terry Mcauliffe, and Lanny Davis…

Inspiration:

• Insane Clinton Dead-Enders Celebrate Glorious Puerto Rico Victory
• Clinton camp converging on New York Tuesday, and shedding staff
• More Coverage of the DNC RBC Meeting!
• Hillary: my part in her downfall

…and furthermore:

I admit I really don’t care at all about the DNC R&B meeting today. There’s no grand principle at stake here and I have no interest in listening to people pretend that there is. The primary system is a weird hybrid of things far removed any concept of “one person one vote.” And it isn’t really a public election the way, say, voting for your Congressman is an election. It’s a contest whereby members of a club choose the leader of that club, who then goes on to participate in a real election.

It isn’t important that muckety mucks from Florida and Michigan get to go to the big party in Denver. The only real issue is if what’s decided today impacts the ultimate outcome - who becomes the leader of the club - and whether that’s seen as legitimate by both sides. Personally I think changing the rules midgame is not the way to do things, though if it doesn’t impact the outcome it doesn’t really matter, but I guess some people differ on that.

In many ways I’m not as rabidly partisan as I used to be. The waning threat of the Republicans is being replaced by the threat of power hungry Democratic Party leaders. Everywhere you turn you read an article declaring Republicanism and or Conservatism on the way out. Bullocks. Royalists and reactionaries never say die. In their stead the bureaucrat apparatchiks of the Democratic Party will provide aegis until the House that Reagan built regenerates.

But it’s not quite over yet, as a friend of a friend reminds me:

…this is a sign to the Republican Party. One I have been holding up for years. They don’t let their candidates be their own people. Everyone has to tow the party line. The Trent Lott years were particularly stupid. I can remember as far back as 1996 when Lott and Newt were ganging up on my man for standing up to the tobacco industry.

Back then, Democrats, Independents, and even many Republicans were cheering John McCain. He’s a “maverick,” he stands up for what he believes in, even when his party disagrees or when it’s not popular.

When did this change? When did he become just another Republican?

The answer…he didn’t. He is still John McCain. He has some moments early in the campaign when he worried the faithful by courting certain religious conservatives…but, we saw how that turned out when his campaign almost fell totally apart. But, he came back to what he does best. Straight Talk. This is what I think. I will listen to your concerns, and I will seriously consider them (how many politicians actually change their mind on something when the people convince him that he was wrong? McCain did this on Immigration). But…I may not agree with you. And, if I don’t, I will tell you exactly why.

Well, I’ve listened. I’ve considered. I don’t agree with you and I’ll tell you why.

If there ever was a day when McCain was truly a Maverick–maybe back when he was considering coming over from the darkside–it is most certainly gone now. The man does triple double backflips like none other in today’s political arena. Witness my favorite shrieking banshee of teh Right:

Shamnesty John McCain is back in full force: No, he never “got the message”
By Michelle Malkin - May 22, 2008 07:23 PM

…And, now, straight from the campaign trail with Arnold “Move Left” Schwarzenegger, McCain has shed every last pretense that he “got the message” from grass-roots immigration enforcement proponents and is back to his full, open-borders shamnesty push. No surprise to any of you. But his complete regression back to the “comprehensive immigration reform” euphemism is a notable milestone.

And what about those “agents of intolerance?” John Hagee, The pastor who John McCain actively sought support from? Rev. Rod Parsley? Under the bus:

Rev. Rod Parsley withdraws McCain endorsement
Saturday, May 24, 2008 10:08 PM

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
After saying Friday that he would not withdraw his endorsement of Sen. John McCain, pastor Rod Parsley has changed his mind.

The pastor of World Harvest Church, in the Canal Winchester area, issued a statement almost identical to one he had sent late Friday night, but with one key change: the addition of the sentence “Therefore I withdraw my endorsement.”

Spokesman Gene Pierce wouldn’t shed light on Parsley’s decision, saying only “this statement is a clarification on (Friday’s) statement.”

McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, rejected the Columbus pastor’s endorsement after holding on to it for nearly three months. Parsley has criticized Islam, calling it inherently violent and saying it is “the anti-Christ religion.”

McCain also rejected Texas televangelist John Hagee’s February endorsement.

In a situation eerily similar to the immigration reform fiasco, McCain calls out the Jerry Falwells, the Pastor Hagee types for what they were, agents of intolerance. Then he reverses course to please and pander to the base of the Republican party. Another zig, another zag, and the next thing you know McCain is saying, “I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable,” when his newest bestest friends among the Religous Right’s statements come to light. That, Jason, is not straight talk.