Death of Boston’s Brad Delp is Ruled a Suicide? Ouch.

Well , now we know why an autopsy wasn’t planned and why the cause of death announcement was so delayed.

CONCORD, N.H. -Boston Globe- The death of Brad Delp, the singer for the 1970s rock band Boston, was a suicide, police said yesterday.

Delp’s family confirmed the suicide at his Atkinson home on Friday.

Toxicology tests by the state medical examiner’s office showed that Delp committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning, said Lieutenant William Baldwin. Delp left two notes taped to a door and letters to his family and his fiancee, Pamela Sullivan. Baldwin said police do not know the letters’ contents because they were sealed.

Touring… getting married, this is not someone who didn’t have a forward direction to his life, as you might expect in a suicide case.

I do not understand.

So KSM confesses.

Of course, he told us nothing of import we didn’t suspect… except he’d planned attacks on Jimmy Carter and Bubba Clinton. Some of the confession as posted to the press, was redacted… not a shock to anyone there…investigations are ongoing, of course…  but taking credit for the stuff that never happened; well, frankly I’m not sure what that’s about.  Captain Ed says this morning:

However, if he’s taking credit for attacks that never came off, it seems to me that he’s adding to the reputation of American counterterrorism rather than his own track record of success at mass murder.

His hearing proved how bad the attacks would have gotten, had the US not taken the war to the terrorists.

And so it does.  Given that two of the higher profile people that would have been attacked were iconic Democrats, I wonder if the left will finally wake up and realize just what was it stake, or will they claim that this confession was set up by the administration to cover GWB’s backside…

If past is prologue, most likely the latter…. idiots that they be.

Update:

Joyner notes the confession and says, in part:

The story is creating a major blogstorm and is obviously news. Still, I’m not sure what to make of it. He has been in American custody nearly four years, without access to an attorney, and claims to have been subjected to torture. I’m just not sure how seriously to take his claim of responsibility for the 9/11 attack, let alone for all the other crimes. That he’s a liar is a given; that he’s insane, a distinct possibility.

True, in all respects. But then James asks:

How is America safer with this confession than it was Saturday morning?

In several ways….

I respond:

You’re talking about ultimate goals. This is about a major step in that direction.

Illustration: In changing a flat tire, one does not have a rolling car when one has performed the steps of locating the jack, figuring out how to USE said jack, using it, getting the hubcaps off, the wheel loose, and then removed from the vehicle.  Those are merely a number of the steps needed to bring about the desired end….a rolling car.

He asks:

And what step would that be? … We’ve presumed from nearly the beginning that KSM was a/the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. We now have ever-so-slightly more evidence in that direction.

And again, I respond:

Well, yes and no… depends on who ‘we’ encompasses.

Mind you, James… this is off the cuff, here.

The left has, for just as long as we’ve held the goon, been suggesting he was a small fish and complaining we’d not captured BinLaden yet…. because, said they, we’re not safe until OBL is caught, supposedly. KSM’s previous claims of responsibility have been discounted by the left, who complained that his admissions were not worth spit because of the ‘torture’ he went through.

So along comes KSM, suggesting this time, it’s a free will offering… which thus eliminates that ‘he was tortuned’ argument. They’ll have no choice but to at least consider he’s been telling the truth.

(As an aside, since his offering now, mirrors almost exactly what he admitted under duress, what does that say to the claims of tourture not being effective, hmmmmmm?)

If we take KSM at his word… (granted a tricky proposition, for reasons we’ve discussed) we see he’s of greater import than BinLaden, if getting the guy responsible for 9/11 was the agenda.

We also find a little wake up call for the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd… whose backside kissing as I said before, doesn’t exempt them from being slaughtered, if this guy and his followers have the chance.

From all of this, we come down to two points, which semi-conflict;

* We were safer all along.. at least in the short term, than many would have us think, given KSM’s out of the picture, he being a bigger fish, in reality, than OBL….
…and…

* those who wish us to withdraw (nee, Cut and Run) from this fight, have had a bit of a wakeup call… which makes us safer in the long term… that wakeup call will (one would hope) lessen their stridency against our actions in Iraq and elsewhere… and that left, upon seeing how personal this was getting against their people,too, will finally to start cheering for OUR side, for once.

That last part alone will make us safer…maintaining the resolve to fight.

Mind, I’m not really stupid enough to consider that that last part is going to happen.  As if in confirmation one of the usual leftists, over there, pipes up with:

I call b.s. — who, “for just as long as we’ve held” KSM, has said he was a small fish?

My response:

Well, its cheesy the story on OBL and 911 and KSM. KSM is nobody but a small actor in the vast plot..if he was that important, he would not have been caught. He was certainly caught for the purpose of spilling the beans of a supposed OBL plot on 911, plot that resides only in the minds of those who believe in UFO’s etc…

No shock that this is William Arkin’s place at work. The DU was full of this kind of comment as well, at the time.

I’ve been saying for a long time, that the denial from the left that these attacks on the United States and the rest of the world, by the Islam a fascist, are serious business, are the very center of their arguments against the war.

The admission of KSM flies in the face of everything they’ve been claiming.  Expect the denials to become more strident over the next week or two.

Update II: Boortz:

So, how long before Ramsey Clark comes knocking to be his defense attorney?

Last week NASA fired that crazy astronaut Lisa Nowak. Apparently there was no place at NASA for an unstable woman. The good news? Today she was hired as co-host of “The View.”  

Jay Leno

One way to explain the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals bewlidering arguement is that the court was simply high on so-called medicial marijuana.   The court authors an opnion which has utterly no relationship to the  Constitution of the  United States as written:

And in the Hillary!-Hubell-Reno firings, as the WSJ details, the firings were intended to scotch ongoing investigations of Rostenkowski and the Clintons, among other clearly improper motives.

Clarice Feldman, American Thinker. 

The nice thing about the fact that the Scooter Libby trial is over, it gives Feldman more time to blog on other subjects.  The MSM may have forgotten about the Clintons’ firing of all US attornerys.   Thw WSJ and Clarice have not.

MyDD is up in arms over, “Blue Dog Saboteurs,”  Matt Stoller is mad because these Blue Dog democrats will not support the plan that Mrs. Pelosi uttely can not explain.  

Stoller is off his medications calling the Blue Dogs’ lack of support sabotage.  For something to be sabotaged, it first must operative.   The Pelosi/Murtha plan can not be sabotaged because it was still born.   A plan that can not be explained, and Mrs. Pelosi is totally incapable of explaining her “plan” can not be said to be operative.

Does Mrs. Clinton really believe that the “Right-Wing Conspiracy Is Back:”

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday described past Republican political malfeasance in New Hampshire as evidence of a “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” Clinton’s barbed comments revived a term she coined for the partisan plotting during her husband’s presidential tenure and echoed remarks she made last weekend in New Hampshire, which holds the nation’s first primary.

To refresh your memory, Mrs. Clinton first uttered her phrase on the Today show to dismiss allegations that her husband, B.J. was having an affair with that Miss Lewinsky.  From the Today interview:

We [the Clintons] know everything there is to know about each other, and we understand and accept and love each other. And I just think that a lot of this is deliberately designed to sensationalize charges against my husband, because everything else they’ve tried has failed.

And:

Well, I think that–if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true.

Mrs. Clinton professed to know everything about her husband.  Yet what Mrs. Clinton knew was not true.   There is a word to describe people who know things which are simply not true, and sane is not that word.  Mrs. Clinton sees marital fidelity where there is none.  She sees conspiracies when there are none.

(H/T:  James Taranto, Opinion Journal )

* Regarding General Pace”;

WASHINGTON -AP- The Pentagon’s top general said Tuesday he should not have voiced his personal view that homosexuality is immoral and should have just stated his support for the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in an interview that has drawn criticism from lawmakers and gay-rights groups.  The written statement by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not apologize for his stance on homosexuality. In a newspaper interview Monday, Pace likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.

Look, gang… His opinion has earned a little respect; the man has been right all along, on a number of things that the left as been complaining about.

I suggest to you the serious possibility, given that trend, that he’s right about this one, too.  Nor, I think, should he be forced into apologetics for his position….  Any more than anyone else should be. He clearly stated it is a personal opinion.

Think about this for just a moment; if he had come out strongly pro homosexual, and addressed it as his personal moral position on the matter, how would it be now, with those demanding an apology from him?  My guess is, they wouldn’t be heard from.

* This business about U.S. attorneys being fired is nothing more than yet another round of Democrat party political opportunism.  It happens every time there is a turnover in the White House.  Always has. That’s because those attorneys, server at the pleasure of the president.  Indeed, Hume tonight, says:

News stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office in 1993.

The only sitting U.S. attorney Clinton did not cashier was Michael Chertoff, now the Bush Homeland Security Secretary. At the time Chertoff was U.S. attorney in New Jersey and then Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey intervened to save Chertoff’s job. None of this was noted, even in passing, in front-page stories today in The New York Times and Washington Post, or in the AP’s story on the subject.

By the way, the mass Clinton firings generated some news stories, some complaints from Republicans in Congress, but no Congressional investigations, and not a word from Chuck Schumer.

As for the charges that the firings were politically motivated?  Well, what they won’t tell you is is that it was just such people who ran inquisition against Scooter Libby.  Go ahead, and tell me about how that wasn’t politically motivated on the part of the lawyers in question.  Fitzpatrick, for one.  So now suddenly, it’s a crime?  Baloney.

What’s really going on here, is that they had originally planned on blowing all of the U.S. attorney’s out of the water and starting from scratch.  All of them.  That, too, is not an unusual situation, happening most recently with Bill Clinton.  The only exception to the “all of them” part was, as Hume says, Chertoff.  Gonzalez thought that blowing them all away would be too much of an intrusion into the process.  After all, these people do occasionally do some serious work that doesn’t involve politics.  So he put forward a list of eight or nine people.  Which, apparently, is where the Democrats started seeing they could manufacture a scandal.

You will forgive me please, if I’m less than impressed by their attempt.

* A reader passed this one along from CNN:

NEW YORK (CNN) — The Rev. Al Sharpton alleged Tuesday that Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign planted a story in the New York Post claiming the civil-rights leader was withholding his support of the Illinois Democrat, because he is ‘jealous’ of Obama’s soaring popularity.

“It’s important to point out, they started this,” Sharpton told CNN. “I mean I wake up yesterday morning with no warning and [read] ‘is he jealous because he wont endorse?’ I’ve never heard anything like that in my life in politics.”

This is like watching two fighters that you truly despise, pounding the snap of one another.  You’re not quite sure who to cheer for.  Actually, I’m not cheering for either one.  But it does occur to me that what we’re witnessed to is an argument over the cultural shift.  This is not much as people are claiming about Sharpton’s being jealous.  What this comes down to is a black representative who is not a race huckster, being popular. That’s something the race hucksters cannot tolerate.

Listen to the two of them speaking, when you get the chance. Move beyond specifically what they’re saying, (Since it’s mostly detestable from them both) and listen closely to how they’re saying it.  This isn’t about color, this is about culture. And I suppose it should be pointed out that as yet  Obama, as detestable as his politics are, has not managed to kill anybody, yet.  Of the two, that is something reserved for Sharpton, alone.

Are democrats literate.  Don’t think so.  From the Washington Post article “furor over firings:”

The U.S. attorneys, the chief federal law enforcement officials in their various districts, typically are appointed to four-year terms by the president on the recommendation of state political leaders, but serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed at any time — like the attorney general and other Cabinet officers.

Are liberals consistent?   From, Paul, Power Line:

The Post also says that Harriet Miers recommended that all U.S. Attorneys be fired. Gonzales wisely rejected this blunderbuss recommendation. It’s worth noting, though, that such a mass firing would not have been unprecedented. President Clinton, through Janet Reno, fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention — to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. They didn’t call Clinton “Slick Willie” for nothing.

Memo to Chuck Schumer:  Get over it.

Update:  I can’t make this stuff up.  I redact my advice to  Senator Schumer.  Get upset Chucky.   From the lovely Clarice Feldman, American Thinker:

January 22, 2004
The Honorable James Comey
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Deputy Attorney General Comey:

I write to request an update on the investigation into allegations that senior administration officials committed a federal felony by leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative.

The investigation has been underway for four months now and we have received no meaningful reports regarding the progress you are making. I realize there are limitations on information that can be disclosed regarding an ongoing criminal investigation, but, as we have discussed, a prosecutor has the responsibility to assure public confidence in criminal investigations, especially those of such a serious nature.

In the wake of recent calls by former intelligence operatives for a Congressional investigation, I write to ask that you publicly answer several questions regarding the progress you are making:

Has a grand jury been empaneled in this case? Have members of the White House staff signed waivers, permitting journalists to discuss confidential communications? If so, what percent of the White House staff has signed such waivers? Has anyone who has been asked to sign such a waiver refused to do so?

Have journalists been interviewed as part of the investigation? Has any journalist who has been released from confidentiality (assuming any has), refused to answer questions regarding previously confidential communications?

Were White House staffers ordered as a condition of employment to submit to interviews? Has anyone asked for or been offered immunity? If so, how many individuals fit in each category and what types of immunity have been asked for and offered to each?

What other information can you provide us regarding the progress you are making with this investigation?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

Tags: BitsBlog, Democrats, Republicans