- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 3
The one question that no one has sufficiently answered is "Why?". If the Bush Administration started monitoring domestic telephone and e-mail communication prior to 911, what was the reason? I don't believe that this was simply about building a political machine for the Republican Party.
I recently purchased Jane Mayer's new book, and have read the passages regarding Cheney's changed personality and his belief that he was infected with anthrax. I would find the book much more convincing if footnotes were used. How exactly does Mayer know this?
This story points readers away from the fact that only Democratic politicians were the recipients of the anthrax letters. Surely, there must be some significance in that.
As an aside, another poster has already speculated that John Bolton may have been involved in the anthrax attacks. As far as I know, there is no evidence to support such a claim. I have always wondered why, though, he made public comments about the possibility of Cuba's involvement with anthrax. A diverson on his part, to be sure--but why Cuba?
The way Ivins' reputation has been savaged reminds me of the severe mistreatment that some whistleblowers receive. Character assasination and public humiliation are common retaliation tactics. So is searching for a person's weak points.
I wonder if Ivins ever speculated among his colleagues, or with the FBI initially, who the true culprit was.
