The FBI has announced they will present scientific evidence it has against the suspect in the anthrax case. Well, since the hair samples they had didn't match, you gotta wonder what is the scope of the evidence they have? Or is it merely going to take them until next week to manufacture evidence? Why haven't they investigated the one person caught on camera entering the anthrax storage area with out authorization? If the FBI can't find murder suspects in one killing where a bunch of undergrads could, how can we expect them to locate a suspect in the anthrax killings? The FBI seems better suited to smear campaigns based on outright lies than doing any investigative work.
Maybe it's because that person may be able to implicate the true mastermind behind the attacks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"Government intelligence" - an oxymoron.
It seems in the anthrax case, they were too busy using it as an excuse to invade Iraq than they were in actually catching the person(s) responsible. Now they've spent so much time trying to pin it on someone else as opposed to some unauthorized person entering the storage facility where the particular strain of anthrax was kept.
1) "Government forensics experts say they identified the single vial that contained the anthrax used in the attacks -- a vial controlled by Mr. Ivins. Officials also say they ruled out as suspects others who may have had access to it, though the officials do not say how they did so". -Washington Post
2) " Mr. Ivins apparently spent many late nights and weekend hours alone at his Fort Detrick Army lab just before the deadly anthrax letters were mailed in 2001; he had not kept such hours before and did not do so again, according to affidavits". - Washington Post
3)
My point is, well, you guys are nuts. I wonder if your readers are the ones who make my coffee or breakfast sandwich in the morning, because I don't sense that a high learning ability is held by any of your readers or contributors, to include myself.
Fun, but really beyond stupid.
The FBI admits it has no case against Ivins.
Still, many questions.
Lew Scannon said...
"The FBI admits it has no case against Ivins."
I read the article you linked to, and no where in the actual WP article is such an admission made. The blog that you linked to, which is a opinion piece just as this one is, said the FBI admited to blah blah blah. Does everything have to be a conspiriacy. I mean you people beleive the jews knocked down the towers to get us active in the middle east, we went to war in iraq because they were going to trade oil in the euro, we are about to invade Iran before Bush gets out of office, wars not approved by the UN are illegal, our troops in Afghanistan are somehow bolstering the heroin trade, Osama died of cancer years ago, Oh thats right, and the government was mailing out the anthrax so we could invade Iraq( probably because of the oil trade thing.
There are actually brilliant nuts in the world, and clearly none of them visit this URL. What about the uni-bomber, after all he must have been set up.
Post a Comment