She's gunning to become one of those home-front casualties. She had better look out when he really does lose his mind.

Steven Jones believes he has evidence of thermate in the dust from the WTC. There's no need to refute that evidence - it's a priori nuts! Philip Giraldi believes that Sibel Edmonds has evidence of an enormous international conspiracy. What rot! If such a thing were even possible, everybody would know and the public would riot in the streets! And of course, all good libertarians know that the government can't even deliver the mail, so it's too dumb to hide a conspiracy.

Both Jones and Giraldi think that their evidence needs to be heard, and both have adopted a slightly pleading tone. Actually, irony aside, I think the only nutty thing is not recognizing their shared commitment to evidence and justice.

(Jones may be completely wrong, but there's enough riding on the matter and enough other evidence of wrong-doing to merit a proper investigation, and stop attacking people who call for one.)

It's interesting to see how all of Sibel Edmond's revelations have been covered up so effectively. I think it tends to show how easy it is cover up conspiracies, even extensive ones. Mr. Giraldi is beginning to remind me of Prof. Steven Jones. Complete nutters of course, both of them.

This kind of article is all well and good. These things need to be said, and to be explained to people who have never heard them before.

But simply presenting it on Antiwar.com is not much more than preaching to the choir. This kind of article needs some kind of actionable item to go with it. How about presenting a set of questions to be sent as a public letter to Obama asking him to explain what he meant at Oslo, a letter that can be copied and emailed by Antiwar readers and others? Until Antiwar starts mobilizing its readership, it won't achieve much.

The Dynamite Prize for War Criminals is only brought more thoroughly into disrepute. There should have been booing instead of applause. The peaceful laureates should be handing back in their medals now. Obama's rhetoric, which has always been tiresomely wordy and archaic-sounding, is becoming very predictable. He always precedes his biggest deceits, biggest provocations, and biggest hypocrisies with "Make no mistake". We make no mistake when we recognize him for a lying, hypocritical thug.

"For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. " Yes Mr President, we can see that.

So this operative from the super-wily group Al Qaeda went to his local military-affiliated mosque which is full of ex-soldiers, and totally blew his cover by talking to the Imam, another ex-soldier, who nevertheless failed to recognize the terrorist operative.

Isn't it enough to realize that there may be any number of other Muslims who aren't affiliated with anyone, but who may be ready to crack at any time? Without claiming there are 'cells', people who have simply had enough represent a growing threat as long as the wars continue. And of course it's not just Muslims either, although Muslims have double the reason for anger.

This article is complete drivel. It would be nice to see Justin come and discuss it a little bit.

The "horrific outburst of violence" statement from Obama is amusing in its way. Here are people living at a facility that is designed specifically for a very sustained outburst of violence, and now the CIC is upset because somebody decided to use the violence for their own ends.

> Anyone who thinks his ethnicity and religion wasn't a factor is a fool or liar. Or both.

Yes indeed, but without that 'political correctness', what are you left with? This is something Fox News and that branch of 'thinking' are going to run into. Of course Muslims in the military are a dire hazard. But what makes them a dire hazard? The wars on Muslims, obviously. So the US is faced with some unappealing choices. 1) Maintain the pretence that Muslims in the military and society aren't a hazard and just pray that the next Hasan doesn't come along too soon, 2) Allow that Muslims are dangerous and must be controlled somehow, and risk admitting the reason why Muslims have become a threat (the wars, obviously), or 3) End the wars on Muslims.

3) would be a good choice, but not particularly likely. I'm sure the war people are sorry that Hasan wasn't killed, because his trial offers the possibility of a merry old can of worms springing open. Andy, how do you propose to go about 2) which is presumably what you would advocate?

As another observation, couldn't it be argued that Hasan was doing his duty as a soldier by taking an action that might be construed as defending the constitution?

Just a quick word about this minor part -- 'All this mocks Obama’s media rhetoric about "a world without nuclear weapons."'

Yes indeed, this is a very important point. The nuclear-free thing is nothing but camouflage but it fools a lot of people (including most of the Japanese nation as far as I can see - people here flopped all over it in joy when St Obama announced it.) There's not the slightest hope for an end to nuclear weapons without a) the end of the international conventional arms trade, and b) the end of nuclear power generation as preconditions.

This point needs to be made clearly, again and again until all the hopeful and gullible understand what the obstacles really are.

It's good to see Pilger integrating this theme in his reporting.

"and smell a whiff of sulfur"

Borrowing from Hugo Chávez? It was quite funny when Chávez used it against Bush. Here, it just comes across as pathetic.

Once all this silly posturing is removed from the article, it becomes clear that bin Laden is just saying what Antiwar has been saying all along, 'cruelty' included. This camouflage job looks like nothing more than cowardice to me.

Very interesting. I don't think I've seen Justin call anybody else 'evil' - not Bush, not Blair, not any of the Israelis, not any generals, not the Clintons - all of whom bear responsibility for similar numbers of victims. Why is just bin Laden 'evil'? Justin even skates pretty close to admitting that bin Laden speaks more truthfully than any of the above mentioned parties, and yet he is still 'evil'. Then why the melodrama?

bin Laden initially denied responsibility for 9/11 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binlade... Of course this may have been a lie, but he is reported to have said;

"The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons"

Are we listening, and if not, why not? If we assume that all the statements attributed to bin Laden are indeed from him, the change of his tune is interesting. What does it all mean Justin? Do you have a clue?