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

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?

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.

"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?

Justin writes:
"What I want to know is this: does Fox News stand by Carl Cameron’s reporting on the question of Israeli foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Yes – or no? If so, then what is their loudest mouth – I refer, of course, to Glenn Beck – doing smearing someone as a "Truther" who is asking the same sort of questions asked by Fox News reporter Cameron? If Van Jones must go, because he’s supposedly a "Truther," then Cameron must go, too."

It would be so much harder to 'smear' somebody as a "Truther" if the earnest body of people who are seeking the truth with the limited means available were treated with a bit more respect by thinking people, like Justin for example. Of course any moron can snicker and say 'crackpot' and think that they've scored a devastating hit. By piling on here, Justin contributes to making the word "Truther" a smear word rather than a badge of simple civic duty.

Justin further writes
"No, I don’t expect an answer to my question any time soon – or, indeed, any time at all. I just want my readers to contemplate the implications of that, and what it says about the veracity of the "official" 9/11 narrative."

Oh, really? We're supposed to question the veracity of the "official" 9/11 narrative, but only up to a point. Are we supposed, with Justin, just to give up expecting an answer to our questions? Obviously I doubt the official story, and the evidence for foreknowledge seems overwhelming. But I don't know what really happened, however much evidence I look at. And in this situation, the answer is not to accept defeat like Justin. It certainly isn't the answer to poor scorn on those people who are actively analyzing the contradictory evidence and most importantly, who are demanding accountability. After all, accountability is what this is about in the end. People like Justin and the ideologues at Counterpunch have lost sight of this. If we can't pin the actual attacks on the government, we could still pin the failure to prevent the attacks on them. But not if we're divided into camps with one side yelling 'crackpot' at every opportunity.

I actually started sending money to Antiwar.com after 9/11, but then I became offended by this counter-productive and divisive stance and decided to spend the money on things closer to home.