Letters to the Editor
-
Onwards and Upwards
Brian Ross continues to strive for new heights of journalistic achievement. ABC News now breathlessly reports his latest coup:
"Alleged 'D.C. Madam' Deborah Jeane Palfrey has given an exclusive interview to ABC News.
"ABC News investigative correspondent Brian Ross recently interviewed Palfrey, who for over a decade operated what she terms an "erotic fantasy service" in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area, for an upcoming investigative report on "20/20" and on "The Blotter" on ABC News.com."
How could anyone continue to doubt the high journalistic standards for ABC News and star reporter (and Peabody Award Winner!!!!) Brian Ross?
-
batman valentino
But when Bush did the “job well done” on the Lincoln, I think he thought it was over. The last thing Cheney and Bush would want to see was their baby, Haliburton involved in a devastating failure like the rebuilding of Iraq. If disaster had been the original plan, Haliburton would have been left on the sideline.
Interesting that you would mention the production on the Lincoln.
Take a look at this video on the White House website, the link to the video is on the right side of the page, a small link "video (real)".
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html#
What do you notice about the video that is strange?
What is missing from the video?
Halliburton has done done quite well for itself in Iraq, they carry none of the blame for the failures there. All Halliburton does is provide support services for the military, they have no input into deciding policy (well, in theory anyway).
-
"...look the same under an electron microscope"???
You don't identify bacteria by their appearance under an electron microscope. Bacillus anthrax and its nonpathogenic relatives such as Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus thuringiensis all form spores, but they probably all look about the same in electron microscopy. Different strains of the same species probably differ even less.
In 2003 that two Berkeley scientists suggested a way to differentiate spores of various Bacillus species using light microscopy.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/02/10_spores.shtml
Though this 2003 press release doesn't say yea or nay, I doubt anyone has worked out a way to tell the spores apart with an electron microscope. If there were an accepted way of doing that, I think the report would mention it and compare the two methods.
The way you identify spores is to culture them and do various tests, mostly biological and biochemical, on them.
If somebody cites electron micrograph appearance as evidence that Bacillus spores are Bacillus anthrax, I'd say he's showing mostly his gullibility.
-
WeikuBoy
Osama: "Good work, Saddam. But let us also strike at their liberal media, which will then sap the infidels' will to fight back. And while we're at it, let's hit the publisher of those Britney Spears photos that torment me so. The [expletive deleted] National Enquirer."
Nice bit of snark.
But it wasn't the National Enquirer that got the anthrax letter, it was the "Sun" another supermarket tabloid also published by American Media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attack/Florida_timeline
A letter addressed to Jennifer Lopez containing a Star of David and a bluish powder arrived in the Sun's mailroom in the American Media headquarters. Several people handled the letter, and Stevens sniffed some of the powder.
It is interesting that this letter, unlike the ones sent to the NY Post, NBC News, Leahy and Daschle, did not have a warning note that anthrax was in the letter. The recipient was intended to die.
-
Nothing new under the sun
I give up, what is missing?
In any case, the fact that the Bush family themselves are interested in windfall military contracts has long been noted and is discussed on this web site:
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/anthrax/anthrax_commissars.html
Mainly through the Carlyle group, the Bushes have a tendency to funnel money to themselves through not one, but many “contractors”. The most infamous, at least in relation to the current discussion is the Bush interest along with Bin Laden family interest in the production of anthrax vaccine through Carlyle groups stake in BioPort.
The Carlyle Group, headquartered in the nation's capital, specializes in seizing control of shaky aerospace and defense contractors and then strong-arming, some say blackmailing, contracts out of the Department of Defense. An investor in the Carlyle Group has been George Herbert Walker Bush. The Elder Bush has been a paid consultant to the Bin Laden Group, helping them with his CIA links. Bush helped create Osama bin Laden as an American CIA bought and paid for alleged "terrorist", originally dubbed a "freedom fighter" to wear out the Soviets in their prolonged war, 1979-1989, in Afghanistan
In the wake of the most current anthrax scare, on 9/11 the government created BioShield to rebuild the vaccine industry. But as we might have predicted, current “legit” vaccine producers have been left out of the windfall.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041017/news_1b17bio.html
All one must do is find out where the anthrax “biosecurity” money is actually going and the anthrax case is self explanitory. There is nothing new under the sun.
-
What about the Safire-Atta-Iraq stories?
Along the same lines, I never saw a retraction by William Safire or the New York Times for his multiple stories linking Iraqi Intelligence to the 9-11 terrorist Mohommed Atta (they allegedly met in Prague). It would be interesting to know who fed him these stories as well.
-
He's A Frikken LAWYER, Folks!
Glenn:
Many times, people here mistake that for being "defensive" or even angry that what I wrote is being criticized. It's actually the opposite. I tend (as a general rule - with some exceptions) to respond to criticisms that I believe merit the most respect and I ignore the ones I think merit the least respect. But the fact that I disagree with the objections and even do so aggressively isn't a sign of "defensiveness."
I find it somewhat puzzling that Glenn has to explain this over and over again. He was trained as a lawyer, spent 10 year working quite successfully as a lawyer. His style of blogging is clearly deeply informed by that professional experience. He also has a fairly active community of commentators who ferret out a high percentage of weaker criticisms.
All this combines to produce a situation where he's free to respond much like a lawyer making oral arguments on appeal. The vast majority of arguments are already dealt with in the written briefs with footnotes and citations out the wazoo. Anything he says beyond that is, therefore, of particularly high importance. And that's how you should think of it when you get into a debate with him.
Actually, now that I describe it, I understand perfectly why it has to be explained over and over again. Some people are going to realize what's going on here right away. Others simply won't, because there aren't a whole lot of other places like this. So it might be a good idea for Glenn to write a little helpful hints piece that the rest of us can refer new folks to when they start to get confused.