Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Anthrax Letters: Dotting the "I"s, Crossing the "T"s

I doubt that this will reassure people who are convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, and see the FBI as a greater threat than Al Qaeda, but:

Robert Mueller, the FBI's Director, say's he'll have an independent review of the scientific process and evidence that led from anthrax-loaded letters to Bruce E. Ivins.

The FBI director also says that the FBI is widening its investigation of mortgage-related fraud. By now they're looking into 24 corporations which may have misstated their assets. But that's another matter.

The methodical, fact-based, reasoned approach that the FBI has been using lately is a welcome relief from the comic opera antics that led to Steven Hatfill being fingered as suspect number one. In large part, apparently, because he was seen in Charley's Place with a few of a Sultan's bodyguards.

That Keystone Cops act was an unpleasant reminder of how law enforcement and the news media jumped on Richard Jewel with both feet, after the Olympic Park bombing.

Just the same, I think this sounds sensible: "I believe the American public and this committee want us to understand that potential threat and do what is necessary to try to identify persons who travel to Pakistan whatever their heritage, whatever their backgrounds, whatever their ethnicity," even if the FBI director said it.

I think it would be well, if national leaders remembered that America has enemies, and that one of them isn't the FBI. I ranted a little about that, in "FISA: Senate Decides Al Qaeda Bigger Threat than FBI" (July 9, 2008).

In the news: "FBI director seeks outside review of anthrax investigation" (CNN (September 17, 2008))
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

2 comments:

Dr. John Maszka said...

The War on Terrorism is a Lie

The war on terrorism is a lie because terrorism is not an enemy, it is a strategy.
Terrorism is a strategy employed by weaker states and non-state actors when fighting an asymmetric war against a more powerful opponent.
No state or non-state actor enters a conventional war against an enemy it has no chance of defeating conventionally.
Since the U.S. has declared that it will maintain military superiority without challenge, it has done everything in its power to do just that. The US defense budget for 2008 is some $700 billion. There is no single state or non-state actor on this planet that can defeat the United States in a conventional war.
Therefore, any single state or non-state actor that finds itself at war with the United States will be forced to fight an asymmetric war. That is, they will be forced to employ terrorism.
Therefore the war on terrorism is a war against anyone at war with the United States. Therefore the war on terrorism is a lie. It is not a war on terrorism at all, but a war to promote and defend US imperialism.

September 17, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Brian H. Gill said...

John Maszka,

Starting with the assumption that America is an imperialistic, capitalistic, warmonger running dog: You're right.

Professor Ward Churchill would probably back up your assertion.

September 20, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.