Where's the Outrage?

PJB -

thanks for the information. so, how do you think did it? Who would have the most to gain from a scared American public besides the Republicans.

PJB -

thanks for the information. so, how do you think did it? Who would have the most to gain from a scared American public besides the Republicans.

"margaret" wrote:

Reader’s Digest wrote a very detailed article about the anthrax contamination a few years ago. I wonder if he is going to sue them also. It was in great detail on how it was done.

Hatfill's $10m lawsuit against Vanity Fair and Reader's digest (their article was a condensed version of Vanity Fair's) was settled for an undisclosed sum.

Note that this time the settlement is not confidential, which goes to show that Hatfill really had the administration by the balls; they could not afford to allow evidence to be given in open court. The only concession they managed to get was one that allows them to go on suggesting that maybe, just maybe, $5.8m notwithstanding, Hatfill might still be the guilty party.

Meanwhile a WSJ editorialist (conveniently forgetting the near certainty that the anthrax came from USAMRIID) suggests that the FBI may have been trying to cover up the possibility that Iraq was behind the attacks, and various wingnut bloggers are rushing to pour as much scorn as possible on the anyone who dares offer the obvious answer to the question "Who stood to gain from the anthrax attacks?"

"margaret" wrote:

Reader’s Digest wrote a very detailed article about the anthrax contamination a few years ago. I wonder if he is going to sue them also. It was in great detail on how it was done.

Hatfill's $10m lawsuit against Vanity Fair and Reader's digest (their article was a condensed version of Vanity Fair's) was settled for an undisclosed sum.

Note that this time the settlement is not confidential, which goes to show that Hatfill really had the administration by the balls; they could not afford to allow evidence to be given in open court. The only concession they managed to get was one that allows them to go on suggesting that maybe, just maybe, $5.8m notwithstanding, Hatfill might still be the guilty party.

Meanwhile a WSJ editorialist (conveniently forgetting the near certainty that the anthrax came from USAMRIID) suggests that the FBI may have been trying to cover up the possibility that Iraq was behind the attacks, and various wingnut bloggers are rushing to pour as much scorn as possible on the anyone who dares offer the obvious answer to the question "Who stood to gain from the anthrax attacks?"

Reader's Digest wrote a very detailed article about the anthrax contamination a few years ago. I wonder if he is going to sue them also. It was in great detail on how it was done.

Reader's Digest wrote a very detailed article about the anthrax contamination a few years ago. I wonder if he is going to sue them also. It was in great detail on how it was done.

Scott, you are so right. hopefully, the American people are seeing the failures of the Bush administration.

Scott, you are so right. hopefully, the American people are seeing the failures of the Bush administration.

Just another example of our governments failure in the war on terrorism. I wonder how come their warrantless wire taps didnt apprehend the real perpatrator....

Just another example of our governments failure in the war on terrorism. I wonder how come their warrantless wire taps didnt apprehend the real perpatrator....