The U.S. Senate must help America get to the bottom of the post-9/11 anthrax attacks.And my astute reader prodded me:
The FBI hasn't produced convincing answers. It had to pay damages to former government scientist Dr. Stephen Hatfill for wrongly labeling him a "person of interest."
It can't convict the government scientist it now blames, Dr. Bruce Ivins, because he took his own life amid FBI hounding.
And a National Academy of Sciences review of FBI scientific evidence, which the FBI itself ordered, isn't finished.
Yet the Obama Justice Department says it's a closed case.
As Cliff Kincaid of America's Survival Inc. (usasurvival.org) notes, the FBI seems hellbent on exonerating al-Qaida. And left-leaning mainstream media have focused on domestic, preferably right-wing suspects -- despite evidence that al-Qaida strove to add anthrax to its arsenal.
So the Senate must follow the House's lead and require the intelligence inspector general to determine whether credible evidence exists of a link between a foreign entity and the anthrax attacks.
Mr. Kincaid chillingly points out that the FBI's handling of the case raises doubts about both its own practices and U.S. readiness for biological terror attacks. Without solid answers about the anthrax attacks, those doubts will only grow.
Look up America's Survival -- hell, look up Cliff Kincaid -- and you'll see what a RMS creation this study was.Ok. Let's.
First the foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife:
- The Sarah Scaife Foundation granted $150,000 in 2008.
- The Sarah Scaife Foundation granted $60,000 in 2007.
- The Carthage Foundation granted $110,000 in 2007.
- The Carthage Foundation granted $60,000 in 2006.
That $380,000 right there.
Media Matters lists only five "funders" for America's Survival, Inc and "America's Survival":
- Armstrong Foundation
- Carthage Foundation
- Sarah Scaife Foundation
- Richard and Helen Devos Foundation
And of those, Armstrong and Devos only granted $11,000. The rest is from Scaife.
The circle-jerk continues.
2 comments:
pennies compared to the money Soros throws around
rich, that's one perspective. But does Soros fund research, and then "discover" that research in the newspaper he owns, and call for more investigation.
The point here is in disclosing interests. If you send money to someone, and then report or editorialize using information from that someone, you should mention the funding in the article or editorial.
Is what Dayvoe is saying, I believe.
Post a Comment