George Maschke thinks it is.

Osama Bin Laden’s widely reported video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 36 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The audio track does appear to be in the voice of a single speaker. What I suspect was done is that an older, unreleased video was dubbed over for this release, with the video frozen when the audio track departed from that of the original video.

26:26 video

He’s right, and he deserves a lot of credit for noticing what the professional media and the government missed.

————————————–

The Telegraph says that US intelligence thinks that the 28 year-old American convert-to-Islam Adam Gadahn wrote most of Osama’s speech.

Gateway Pundit links a 5:48 video of John Gibson from Fox News comparing Osama’s recent speech to some statements by Keith Olbermann. “There’s an echo in the room.” Hilarious.

James Gordon Meeks explains that he has probably not been moving around very much, and that his hideout is not a cave.

Osama Bin Laden isn’t hiding in caves. He’s almost certainly living in a cozy compound in Pakistan guarded by a few loyal fanatics, a dozen terror experts and intel officials told the Daily News.

The group of veteran Bin Laden hunters say the cave-dwelling myth is one of many tall tales about the Al Qaeda kingpin, including reports that the renegade Saudi is dying of kidney disease.

Six years after the 9/11 attacks, many Americans don’t understand why he’s so hard to find and kill. Frustrated agents say he skulks across some of the most hostile terrain in the world and that Pakistan refuses to let U.S. troops chase him there.

The futility of efforts to permanently silence Bin Laden was brought home Friday when he released his first video message since 2004, a 26-minute, anti-U.S. diatribe.

In the jagged peaks of the Afghan-Pakistani border, a good Bin Laden hideout typically would be a simple adobe house surrounded by a high mud-brick wall – perfect for defending a monster.

“He’s probably not living in a cave,” said Robert Grenier, the ex-CIA Pakistan station chief who helped topple the Taliban after 9/11 and chased Bin Laden afterward.

“He’s probably living in a fairly comfortable, though Spartan, compound somewhere in northern Pakistan,” Grenier said.

All of those interviewed by The News – including several top intelligence officials with the highest security clearances – agreed. …

..since he escaped his Tora Bora mountain lair in late 2001, experts say Bin Laden likely has stayed put in a new hideout with a tiny band of die-hard bodyguards, not an army of them.

“He’s probably not moving a lot – if ever,” Grenier said.

“If and when he moves,” a senior U.S. intelligence official told The News, “it’s with a handful of people to keep the footprint small and not attract attention.” …

here also is a consensus that he’s protected by Pakistani tribesmen or government agents in tribal areas and communicates by courier, using “cutouts” who don’t read the message or know its author. Years ago, Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri “handed out cash to tribal elders” to protect Bin Laden’s thugs, said Robert Pelton, who wrote about the hunt for the pair in the 2006 book “Licensed to Kill.”

Recent fighting in Afghanistan with foreign fighters pushed out of Pakistan suggests Al Qaeda has run out of payoff money, he said.

One of Bin Laden’s likely protectors is famed mujahedeen Jalaluddin Haqqani, a Pashtun ally and Taliban military genius. Haqqani maintains the outer ring of his security while loyal Arabs make up the inner ring, a counterterror agent in Afghanistan told The News.

—————————

Hat tip to Stephen Frankel.

Bryan Fischer points out one little detail which we in the blogosphere and the MSM both absentmindedly overlooked. And he’s quite right.

As word comes of Sen. Larry Craig’s reconsideration of his announced resignation from the U.S. Senate, it turns out that his best ally in getting rid of his guilty plea for his conduct in a Minneapolis airport restroom may be the United States Constitution.

If the senator had been a better student of the U.S. Constitution, his arrest may never happened at all, and if the U.S. Constitution is followed, as of course it should be, the senator’s arrest and guilty plea will have to be vacated.

This is because the Constitution, in a straightforward and unambiguous manner, states in Article 1, Section 6 that “Senators and Representatives. shall. be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.” (emphasis mine) The only exceptions are for treason, felony and breach of peace, and the senator, of course, was charged with a misdemeanor.

Since the senator was on his way to Washington, and did in fact cast a vote on the evening of the day on which he was arrested, his arrest and subsequent questioning were, technically speaking, unconstitutional.

If the senator had flashed the Constitution at the officer as soon as the officer flashed his badge at him, the officer would have had no choice but to release the senator to go on his way.

This little detail (which I should have remembered, having discussed it myself in relation to the FBI search of Congressman Jefferson’s office) provides quite a plot twist.

It is difficult to imagine a court seeing any alternative to throwing out that Minneapolis misdemeanor on Constitutional grounds. Senator Craig, therefore, winds up with no conviction, and does not need to resign. The State of Idaho, and the rest of America, gets to retain the services of a senator with a 96 ACU rating. A happy ending for all but the democrats.

ABC News has a transcript of Osama’s remarks, in which the bearded one does manage to come up with one good argument supporting his demand that America immediately convert to Islam.

I invite you to embrace Islam.There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent.

Tempting, but alas! 97.5% of the sort of income typically achievable in the backward lands in which intellectual progress and enterprise are stifled by religious superstition would come out to a lot less than the smaller percentages of much larger incomes left to us by our greedy governments.

After a long interval of silence, Osama bin Laden is back with a new video, which mysteriously disappeared from Islamist web-sites soon after being posted.

Even more mysteriously, Osama’s beard has grown darker than it was three years ago. Evidently, Islamic law does not forbid beard color-improvement.

Allahpundit is probably making too much out of all this. Rather than showing anything really substantive about democrats, this Zogby Poll probably merely demonstrates the insufficiently-often-recognized ability of the people commissioning polls to produce the results they desire by how they frame the questions.

Bill Roggio has the story.

On September 5, Coalition forces announced the capture of “a highly-sought individual suspected of being an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force (more commonly spelled “Quds,” as in “al Quds,” i.e. Jerusalem) (IRGC-QF) affiliate” during a raid in Karbala.

The Special Groups agent, who has not been identified, is “suspected of coordinating with high-level IRGC-QF officers for the transportation of multiple Iraqis to Iran for terrorist training at IRGC-QF training camps.” The suspect also serves as a logistical operative and “is closely linked to individuals at the highest levels of the IRGC-QF. Coalition forces are still assessing his possible connection to the Special Groups.” Documents, photographs, communications equipment, and computers were found during the raid on his home.

Information obtained from this latest raid likely will shed more light on the leadership and organization of the Special Groups, the identity of their Iranian Qods Force handlers, and their current plans in Iraq.

Abigail Thernstrom has some harsh comments on the Progressive community in her review of the new book by Stuart Taylor Jr. and KC Johnson on the Duke Lacrosse Case.

Until Proven Innocent” is a stunning book. It recounts the Duke lacrosse case in fascinating detail and offers, along the way, a damning portrait of the institutions — legal, educational and journalistic — that do so much to shape contemporary American culture. Messrs. Taylor and Johnson make it clear that the Duke affair — the rabid prosecution, the skewed commentary, the distorted media storyline — was not some odd, outlier incident but the product of an elite culture’s most treasured assumptions about American life, not least about America’s supposed racial divide. …

The state attorney general — after an agonizing yearlong investigation, culminating in Mr. Nifong’s removal from the case — determined in April 2007 that Messrs. Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann were innocent of all charges. Nothing — absolutely nothing — had happened at the party. The players’ innocence had been apparent to their own attorneys from the outset. It should have been apparent to Mr. Nifong, too, given all the exculpatory details he knew. But he was desperate to win a close primary election and needed black votes, so he proceeded with an unjustified prosecution and publicly vilified innocent young men.

In this fundamental injustice, he was aided and abetted by others in Durham. Richard Brodhead, the president of Duke, condemned the lacrosse players as if they had already been found guilty, demanded the resignation of their coach and studiously ignored the mounting evidence that Ms. Mangum’s charge was false. He was clearly terrified of the racial and gender activists on his own faculty. Houston Baker, a noted professor of English, called the lacrosse players “white, violent, drunken men veritably given license to rape,” men who could “claim innocence . . . safe under the cover of silent whiteness.” Protesters on campus and in the city itself waved “castrate” banners, put up “wanted” posters and threatened the physical safety of the lacrosse players.

The vitriolic rhetoric of the faculty and Durham’s “progressive” community — including the local chapter of the NAACP — helped to intensify the scandal and stoke the media fires. The New York Times’ coverage was particularly egregious, as Messrs. Taylor and Johnson vividly show. It ran dozens of prominent stories and “analysis” articles trying to plumb the pathologies of the lacrosse players and of a campus culture that allowed swaggering white males to prey on poor, defenseless young black women. As one shrewd Times alumnus later wrote: “You couldn’t invent a story so precisely tuned to the outrage frequency of the modern, metropolitan, bienpensant journalist.” Such Nifong allies — unlike the district attorney himself — paid no price for their shocking indifference to the truth.

Some observations by the authors themselves appeared in yesterday’s Washington Post.

The 24-hour sentence was imposed on Mike Nifong, the disbarred former district attorney of Durham, after a contempt-of-court trial last week for repeatedly lying to hide DNA evidence of innocence. His prosecution of three demonstrably innocent defendants, based on an emotionally disturbed stripper’s ever-changing account, may be the worst prosecutorial misconduct ever exposed while it was happening. Durham police officers and other officials aided Nifong, and the city and county face the threat of a massive lawsuit by the falsely accused former students seeking criminal justice reforms and compensation.

All this shows how the criminal justice process can oppress the innocent — usually poor people lacking the resources to fight back — and illustrates the need for reforms to restrain rogue prosecutors. But the case was also a major cultural event exposing habits of mind among academics and journalists that contradict what should be their lodestar: the pursuit of truth.

Nifong’s lies, his inflaming of racial hatred (to win the black vote in his election campaign) and his targeting of innocent people were hardly representative of criminal prosecutors. But the smearing of the lacrosse players as racist, sexist, thuggish louts by many was all too representative.

Dozens of the activist professors who dominate campus discourse gleefully stereotyped and vilified their own students — and not one member of Duke’s undergraduate faculty publicly dissented for months. Duke President Richard Brodhead repeatedly and misleadingly denigrated the players’ characters. He also acted as though he had no problem with Nifong’s violations of their rights to due process.

The New York Times and other newspapers vied with trash-TV talk shows hosted by the likes of CNN’s Nancy Grace, a biased wacko-feminist, and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, a right-wing blowhard, in a race to the journalistic bottom. The defendants — who endured the ordeal with courage and class — and their teammates were smeared nationwide as depraved racists and probable rapists.

To be sure, it was natural to assume at first that Nifong had a case. Why else would he confidently declare the players guilty? But many academics and journalists continued to presume guilt months after massive evidence of innocence poured into the public record. Indeed, some professors persisted in attacks even after the three defendants were declared innocent in April by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper — an almost unheard-of event.

Brushing aside concern with “the ‘truth’ . . . about the incident,” as one put it, these faculty ideologues just changed their indictments from rape to drunkenness (hardly a rarity in college); exploiting poor black women (the players had expected white and Hispanic strippers); and being born white, male and prosperous.

This shameful conduct was rooted in a broader trend toward subordinating facts and evidence to faith-based ideological posturing. Worse, the ascendant ideology, especially in academia, is an obsession with the fantasy that oppression of minorities and women by “privileged” white men remains rampant in America. Its crude stereotyping of white men, especially athletes, resembles old-fashioned racism and sexism.

Hat tip to Daniel Lowensten.

Ex-Clintonite Sidney Blumenthal tells us in Salon that George W. Bush knew all along that poor old Saddam had no WMD. Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister said so, and presumably Baghdad Bob offered precisely the same assurances. Evidently, George Tenet mentioned Sabri’s information once at a White house briefing. Everybody had a good laugh, and went on to more serious matters.

Sidney’s sources include Pouting Spook Tyler Drumheller and two other unnamed VIPS affiliates.

All this is simply old anti-Bush propaganda in a new hit piece.

14:12 video

Much too much head-bobbing, but otherwise a pretty decent performance. I have never had the slightest temptation to support Rudolph Giuliani, a liberal Republican whose political career was founded on the abuse of prosecutorial power. Mitt Romney’s business career compels respect, and I have not been living in Massachusetts, so I was not terribly familiar with the detail of his liberal actions and policies as governor. I thought Romney was worth considering, until I observed his indecent haste in jettisoning ties to Larry Craig. That was a little too political for my taste. McCain is, of course, not only way too liberal, he’s also way too old. So, on the whole, I am leaning toward Thompson.

I suspect that Fred Thompson is the only GOP contender with a serious chance of defeating Lady Macbeth. Giuliani was afraid to run against her for the Senate from New York. Why would anyone think he can beat her nationally?

Fred08.Com

Gun Owners of America reports that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have introduced a “Veterans Disarmament Bill,” which would expand the tactics used by the 1993 Brady Bill to disqualify Americans from gun ownership.

As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms — based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder; Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s (and there goes the family inheritance); Your kid could be permanently banned from owning a gun, based on a diagnosis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.