As they say, third time’s the charm.

A military court on Wednesday convicted Osama bin Laden’s driver of supporting terrorism but acquitted him on the more serious charge of conspiring with al Qaeda in the first U.S. war crimes trial since World War Two.

…

It was the Bush administration’s third attempt to try Hamdan, who won a Supreme Court victory that scrapped the first version of the Guantanamo court system in 2006. The charges were twice dropped and refiled.

Okay, I’m not a legal expert, but it seems to me if a guy’s been already brought up on charges before and had them dropped, twice, that repeatedly trying to get him again just seems… peculiar. We couldn’t do that to OJ, I don’t get why a dude that just ferried bin Laden around can be repeatedly brought to trial for the same things.

“The travesty of this verdict now is that had the case gone to trial in 2004 he would have been acquitted of all the charges,” said Deputy Chief Defense Counsel Michael Berrigan.

UPDATE: It’s a good thing he was found guilty of something, because even if he wasn’t he apparently would have been held as an “enemy combatant”. That’s what passes for justice in the “War on Terror”. Get found innocent, go back to your cell anyway. Excellent.

I speak in hyperbole a lot on here, talking about things blowing my mind or giving me a nosebleed, but by and large I’m just embellishing. This, however, is no joke. I got a legitimate headache after seeing this.

President Bush has delivered an ultimatum: catch Bin Laden before his term ends.

The Special Boat Service (SBS) and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment have been taking part in the US-led operations to capture Bin Laden in the wild frontier region of northern Pakistan. It is the first time they have operated across the Afghan border on a regular basis.

The hunt was “completely sanctioned” by the Pakistani government, according to a UK special forces source. It involves the use of Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles fitted with Hellfire missiles that can be used to take out specific terrorist targets.

One US intelligence source compared the “growing number of clandestine reconnaissance missions” inside Pakistan with those conducted in Laos and Cambodia at the height of the Vietnam war.

We’re within three months of the seventh, the seventh anniversary of 9/11, and suddenly Dubya decides it’s high time to catch the guy who was responsible for it. What’s really painful though, is the reasoning. This one’s going in bold because you cannot skip it.

“If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place,” said a US intelligence source.

Not “if bin Laden is captured, the world will be a safer place”, no. It’s if he can capture bin Laden, he can claim he left the world a safer place.

This man has no shame. Absolutely no shame. He doesn’t give two shits about bin Laden for the years following the attacks, but when he’s about to leave office all of a sudden he really, really wants to get ‘im. Not to protect the world, not to bring a murderer to justice. Just to salvage his own reputation.

Is he alive? Is he dead? This is throwing a bit of a wrench into the mix, but Al Jazeera got their hands on an audio tape purportedly made by the Al Qaeda leader, this one having the terrorist leader going off on Israel-Palestine peace negotiations.

In the first recording, bin Laden accused Pope Benedict XVI of helping in a “new Crusade” against Muslims and warned of a “severe” reaction for Europeans’ publication of cartoons seen by Muslims as insulting Islam’s prophet.

In the audio on Al-Jazeera, bin Laden said the sufferings of Palestinians in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip began when Arab leaders supported the U.S.-hosted Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Md., and the “Zionist entity,” the militant name for Israel

The mention of the Annapolis summit in November was the only time reference given in the audio.

Is it just me, or is bin Laden sounding more and more like an old man who really wants to remain relevant?

However, I really do wonder how history will look at things like this. Is the lesson that you can murder a few thousand Americans, so long as you go into hiding and become “neutralized”?

Okay, so the bin Laden tape is out and it’s time for the pundits to all start talking about it. Just like last time, the right has started their assault on the left because of supposed “connections” between bin Laden’s rhetoric and that of some on the far left. FOX News is leading the charge, beginning with the lovable Sean Hannity.

“He seems to adopt the exact same language being used by the hard left in this country,” Hannity says, “as he describes what’s going on in Iraq as a civil war. He actually used the term ‘Neocons.’ He talks about global warming. He demonizes capitalisms (sic) and corporations in this whole thing — very, very specific language. It seems to be coming from somebody who is keenly aware of the world situation and the battle and the conflict in America over this war, and even admonishing the Democratic Party for not ending the war.”

Now you can read the entire transcript of the thing for yourself, and for the record he uses the word “neoconservatives” as opposed to the more slang-ish “neocons”. While that seems like a tiny distinction, it tells me that Hannity didn’t actually read/listen and just took a few bullet points before yelling. No surprises there.

What really gets to me is that as soon as bin Laden starts talking, the right is so eager to put him in the same camp as the left. Now on any given issue, he’s probably going to side with the left or the right. If he says something like “the war is a failure”, he’s going to say something like what the left says. When he starts saying the country should be run as a theocracy, he’s with the right (albeit with a different religion).

One thing we know about Osama bin Laden is that he’s not a complete moron. He possesses a strong knowledge of history and world politics, and can put the ideas together very well. He’s not some idiot in a cave, though that’s where he tends to hide, he’s a very smart man and can obviously deliver a speech with the best of them. Read through, he evokes world leaders throughout the decades, even mentions Noam Chomsky.

A lot of potentially bad things are happening right around now. The Petraeus report is on the horizon and chances are it’s not going to be good for the president, GOP congressmen are dropping like flies and support for a war on Iran is starting up. So what’s the only thing that could get us back on track?

That’s right, another Osama video tape. As before, this one just mysteriously pops up and Homeland Security officials are saying there’s nothing to worry about, with the most interesting aspect of the tape being Osama’s appearance. Take a look for yourself.

One of three posibilities here:

1. It’s a different guy.
2. The tape is old.
3. He’s wearing a fake beard.

Richard Clarke, a guy I tend to trust, goes with the third statement, pointing out that it may offer some insight into the difficult to find terrorist’s location.

“One place where a beard would stand out would be southeast Asia, the Philippines, Indonesia,” Clarke told ABC News. “No one’s thought he was there, but that is an environment where most men, Muslim men don’t have beards.”

Frankly, I think Osama bin Laden could be living in Kentucky if he shaves his beard and wears polo shirts and khaki pants, but all that tells us now is that the world’s preeminent terrorist managed to evade capture via the cunning use of a Schick Quattro.

The tape is undoubtedly aimed to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary and as we’re being told yet again Al Qaeda doesn’t attack on anniversaries, it’s just a good time for propaganda. And if I was Osama Bin Laden, assuming I haven’t been dead from kidney failure for six years, I’d be doing my damndest to try and scare the American masses into charging headlong into another war.

Remember, they hate us for our freedoms, so Bush was kind enough to take a lot of them away. Start up another war, get the people riled up some more, I’m sure eventually the terrorists will be happy with the decisions he’s made.

Boy this certainly isn’t discouraging. Proving our efficacy in the War on Terror, hot on the heels of the suicide bombing that may or may not have been intended to kill our veep, comes Brian Ross with an update on Osama bin Laden.

The newly appointed Director of National Intelligence Jack McConnell made the assertion about bin Laden and his No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Referring to Pakistan’s rugged tribal area, McConnell said “to the best of our knowledge that the senior leadership, No. 1 and No. 2, are there, and they are attempting to re-establish and rebuild and to establish training camps.”

That’s right, folks. Osama bin Laden is not neutralized, and he and his No. 2 are very possibly setting up shop in Pakistan. You may criticize Ross himself, but keep in mind that he broke the Foley scandal and a number of others, so I’d say he’s a reliable source.

Back in 2003, President Bush said he wasn’t thinking about bin Laden, didn’t know where he was and didn’t seem to care. When the first American, be it soldier or civilian, dies at the hands of the regrouped Al Qaeda, you can bet your ass that statement will become Bush’s downfall. At least if there’s any justice in this world.

Maybe this topic is unnecessary to talk about, but it’s still one worth thinking about at least. In his most recent speech, President Bush made sure to remind us that the Iraq Fiasco (I refuse to label it a ‘war’ any more) is still related to Al Qaeda and 9/11, either via explicit linkage, saying that they will have a haven or are the cause of the insurgency, or via implicit linkage, that “we learned the lessons of 9/11.”

A rash of articles came out after Saddam Hussein’s execution criticizing it not because of the barbarism, but rather because what should have been a monumental event was a circus sideshow. The execution of a brutal dictator, relegated to fame a cell phone video on YouTube rather than heralded as a triumph of justice for the good of mankind.

That got me thinking. As little as anyone paid attention to Saddam prior to his execution, and as quickly forgotten as it already seems to be, the fate of Osama bin Laden seems entirely removed from the American conscience.

Within minutes of being told that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen of Al Qaeda were responsible for the deaths of 3,000 of our fellow citizens, I saw the United States live up to its name in a way I doubt we’ve had since Pearl Harbor and I doubt we’ll see again within my lifetime.

Remember that? There was no one who sympathized with Osama. Even the “sympathizers” were of the more pragmatic “I wonder what pissed him off that much” variety, certainly no one was calling for anything other than his head on a platter. There was Osama’s face on toilet paper, Bush’s approval was over 90%, and when the war in Afghanistan was announced, the only complaint even the most liberal people had was “just try not to kill too many civilians.”

In 2001, as well as for a fair amount of 2002, the entire country was calling for the blood of Al Qaeda, but mostly its front man, Osama bin Laden. It is now 2007, and not only was Osama never captured in the interim, but people stopped caring.

Last September, it was widely reported that Osama may have died of typhoid fever. May have died, it wasn’t certain. What happened to the followup? The last we heard, it was uncomfirmed.

Unconfirmed. This is a step beyond not knowing where he is these days, it’s not knowing IF he is these days. The way-out conspiracy types will suggest he’s already dead, and it appears Israel agrees. Whether or not that’s true is another debate, but let’s suppose he is. The glaring question then, is why we haven’t been told.

I have, in the past, suggested that Osama is Bush’s best friend. And for some time, he was. But that’s faded away over time, and I myself was fairly blind to how far along that had gotten even when I wrote about it. Bush never mentions bin Laden, and he hardly gets any news coverage. The latest tapes were in the media briefly, and then vanished.

It hardly matters any more.

Osama bin Laden was directly invoked to get us into war with Afghanistan. His group was invoked to get us into war with Iraq. His style of attack is used to keep us afraid and at war with whoever Bush wants us at war with. The enemy shifted slowly from Osama himself to Al Qaeda, then to terrorism as a whole.

At this point, there is no “enemy” any more, and the death of any one of them is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter, to the men in the White House, if Osama is alive or dead. He has served his function, and now they’re done with him. He has been slowly erased, and at this point he only exists in memories.

It’s a fantastic metaphor, or at least an indicator, for the Faux-War on Terror at large. Everything about its beginning has slowly faded away. It was not eliminated, it was not taken care of, it was just ignored as it proved to be either difficult or incorrect, passed over for the next short-lived target.

Then, as we followed our misguided leader further and further away from the point of origin, it, and the man who personified it, disappeared over the horizon.

Here you go. C-SPAN had the full press conference and you can see what happened. A woman asked Bush if it was true that he had zero meetings on bin Laden prior to 9/11, this is his answer:

[youtube]BjB9uMUM6xI[/youtube]

As you watch, constantly ask yourself what his words have to do with answering the question. It’s a simple “yes” or “no” question, yet here he is invoking the 9/11 reponse, the Iraq War, the upcoming elections, wiretapping, and the British terror plot. Yet, he says nothing about something as simple as “did you talk about bin Laden somtime before 9/11?”

That the nice folks over at Free Republic are mildly unhinged shouldn’t be news to anyone. Their comments over coming out to your children were… well let’s just be honest. They were vile.

So with all the talk about Clinton and his efforts or lack thereof with catching bin Laden, it’s funny that the Freepers should weigh in on his “wag the dog” claims.

Conservatives did use the wag the dog reference numerous times, not in reference to bin Laden, but in reference to Clinton’s massive bombardment of Serbia, which had absolutely nothing to do with bin Laden.

Claiming that ‘right wing conservatives’ were complaining that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden is an outright lie. But to try and prove it by using the wag the dog reference was a stupid move on his part and illuminated his lack of facts to back it up. And in my view, invalidated the rest of the rant, er interview.

Hell of a bombshell of an accusation. Is it true? Did Clinton just make it up that the redcoats were accusing him of wagging the dog with going after bin Laden in order to retroactively make himself look better?

It’s certainly an accusation supported by the various comments, take this fella for one:

Yes you are correct. “Wag the dog” was not about OBL, it was about bombing Serbia to take the news stories away from Monica. I was as interested in politics then as I am now, I don’t recall even knowing anything about OBL at that time.

So that’s the main thesis, then. The main criticism had nothing to do with Osama and Afghanistan, it was about bombing Serbia. In fact, Clinton never actually talked about bin Laden, right? Right?

No. Nope, sorry, that is actually how it happened. In fact, you can take a look at Free Republic’s own site back in 1998 when the bombing in Afghanistan started up. And the title just sums it up perfectly: Wag The Dog ! Wag the Dog! We are bombing Afganhistan! Onto the comments:

Please pray for our pilots and sailors and that this does not escacalate. This is so sad. Afgahnistan ought to be our ally.

Important point: Islamic extremists are Islamic first, very tight knit. I grudgingly respect their unity. This could spill over to many other countries. Our only hope is that the Islamics believe our administration was righteous in what it did. This is a litmus test of Clinton’s ability ot handle a diplomatic mess. PLEASE PRAY.

If the Islamics are too outraged, we need to get the bum out. If he doesn’t resign, he needs to be impeached. This is absurd. We have NEVER had a military leader asked if “this was wag-the-dog”. This can’t be good for foreign affairs or for our troops.

Possibly the most ironic thing ever uttered:

The real question is what we’re NOT hearing is if the strikes were conducted with the approval of Afghanistan & Sudan; and IF those other soverign states KNEW of our intention to launch attacks inside their territory. If not, slick has now marked America as a terrorist nation and committed an international act of war. This absolutely AIN’T no coincidence, folks. BC is dangerous and must go NOW!

Amazing. Back in 1998 they were angry that he attacked the country without their approval, that he didn’t try to fix things diplomatically, and said Afghanistan should be our ally.In 2006, they want to bomb the hell out of the Middle East at large, don’t care about allies, and are saying Muslims are too savage and bloodthirsty to be able to have peaceful talks with.

Now, a more jaded person might suggest that they just were against anything Clinton did and support anything Bush does. Hm.

Oh, and if you’re wondering why the page from 1998 isn’t on Free Republic’s own site, there’s a very simple explanation for that: in order to protect themselves from simple investigation on their “we never said that claims”, they erased the page. Incredible.

UPDATE: A rather astute reader has brought it to my attention that not only is THAT article gone, but it seems that their entire pre-1999 archives are gone. So, in the interest of adhering to the razor, my thesis is now updated: the Freepers, purging out their old posts and articles (which is probably for server reasons), are helping themselves forget their own history and that’s how we find ourselves in a situation like this.

Incredibly convenient on their part (since the archives that are missing are going to be full of their baseless attacks on Clinton such as this), but nothing malicious.

A tip of my hat to Kev in the comments. It took a little work for me to verify the claim as a bunch of the pages, oddly, weren’t archived by WayBack. Regardless, I stand corrected. Don’t get too confident, though, it’s just that last paragraph. The main thesis is the contradiction, durnit.
[tags]clinton, bin laden, republicans[/tags]

Clinton agreed to go on Fox News Sunday and be interviewed, partly about his Clinton Global Intiative, and part as a free-for-all which naturally drifted to talking about bin Laden. To put it mildly, Clinton got a bit peeved. ThinkProgress with the transcript.

CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

Wow. The man is fired up. Now, this got me thinking about the two men’s track records when it comes to their anti-terrorism efforts. Let’s take a look, shall we?

1) The WTC was bombed in February of 1993, nary a month after Clinton had been sworn in. America was not attacked after that, and no wars had to be waged. Another attack didn’t occur until he was out of office and the country was in another man’s hands.

2) Republicans now who blame 9/11 on Clinton now back in 1998 accused him of “Wag the Dog” distraction. They said he was using the air strikes to appear “presidential” for a day. They said he used it to draw attention away from Monica.

3) Let’s not forget Alec Station, which I’ve written about previously. Created in 1996 to find and capture bin Laden, dismantled in 2005 under Bush.

4) Logically, if the republicans are so accusatory of Clinton, and had been yelling and screaming that he was so negligent, that would mean that as soon as Bush took office it would be business-time and they’d start busting their asses to stop the terrorist threat. Was that the case? Well, no, Bush took around 42% of his days on vacation until 9/11 happened.

5) Following from point #1, the 1993 WTC bombing was about a month after Clinton took office. 9/11 was roughly nine months after Bush took office. One of these men had plenty of time to realize the threat and diffuse it. I’m not sure I need to mention the August 6th memo again.

6) A while ago, John Kerry joked that bin Laden would die of kidney failure before Bush ever got him. It doesn’t seem he was that far off, as there’s a (currently unconfirmed) report claiming that bin Laden is gravely ill or already dead from typhoid fever.

There hasn’t been an attack after the initial one during either presidency. Neither of them caught him and it looks like disease had to take the man down. To this extent, both presidents are fairly equal. However, one of these presidents waged a war in an unrelated nation, is trying to re-write the laws of the land, and has managed to drive more support towards the terrorists along the way. Take a guess which one that is.

A little food for thought, everyone.

[tags]terrorism, bush, clinton, media, al qaeda, bin laden, 9/11[/tags]