Glenn wrote:he seems clearly driven by a belief in the need for Christian doctrine to govern our laws and political institutions, with a particular interest in Catholic dogma

If this guy was a deeply devout Catholic, that really decreases the odds of suicide. It's a mortal sin for Catholics.

RMP: I'm not saying that the White House didn't push, I'm saying they felt secure in putting out their statements that the source was within the US (and therefore they could claim not to be pushing the Iraq connection) because they were getting such good coverage of the Iraq connection in the press, which, as you point out, they almost certainly pushing behind the scenes.

What is your reason for posting this comment?

If this thread turns into a 9-11 truth debate, I'm leaving and never coming back. I've seen the rest of Salon, and that was scary enough.

Let's see:

1. You want to limit questions on a blog written by someone whose has as one of his primary foci the asking of questions that others in the media will not?

2. You want to stifle discussion in a so-called democracy that has suffered and is suffering through one of the most tyrannical, discussion-stifling periods in its history?

3. You wish to assert a priori that any questioning of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory (questioning which Glenn bravely did today) is not worthy of your time and attention?

4. You wish to prove your bona fides as a Reasonable person by immediately rejecting any reasonable discussion of what happened during one of the most seminal events in our history--a history replete with government-sponsored false flag events?

The anthrax attacks were a part of 9/11. And Glenn makes his position very clear:

ABC News already knows the answers to these questions. They know who concocted the false bentonite story and who passed it on to them with the specific intent of having them broadcast those false claims to the world, in order to link Saddam to the anthrax attacks and -- as importantly -- to conceal the real culprit(s) (apparently within the U.S. government) who were behind the attacks.

Clearly, it is time to engage on this issue of 9/11 in light of everything we now know about this administration and these crimes.

Your post on page 12 is awesome.

Ha-ha-ha, you didn't guess right! And you missed the most obvious possibility, too. The fact is, I'm already pretty drunk this morning, and that's why I said it. What the hell did you think?

Okay, okay, let the 9-11 truth thread begin. But don't say I didn't warn you!

But you will probably say that- that's the kind of guy you are.

I'm gonna have another drink. My Dad always told me -don't stop until you can't type. He was a writer, too.

That's all great work and great research. Thanks.

This ABC story has sat with me since I wrote about it more than a year ago -- just one of those extreme outrages that didn't get resolved and that I couldn't do more about. I did what I could last year -- it got a fair amount of attention, I was able to force ABC's lawyers into issuing denials and the like -- but nowhere near enough to really pressure them.

I've often thought about things I could do to push this story -- finding the sources on one's own would be the key. But now that the anthrax attacks are back in the news, maybe this is a new opportunity to drag ABC's conduct back into the spotlight.

Have another, hiccup, on me.

Cheney wanted to dress American Soldiers up as Iranians, put them in boats, have the shoot at the Navy, get killed by return fire, and voila, a pretext for war.

Seymour Hersh:

"HERSH: There was a meeting. Among the items considered and rejected — which is why the New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn’t accepted — one of the items was why not…

There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives.

And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

So I can understand the argument for not writing something that was rejected — uh maybe. My attitude always towards editors is they’re mice training to be rats.

But the point is jejune, if you know what that means. Silly? Maybe. But potentially very lethal. Because one of the things they learned in the incident was the American public, if you get the right incident, the American public will support bang-bang-kiss-kiss. You know, we’re into it.

…What happened in the Gulf was, in the Straits, in early January, the President was just about to go to the Middle East for a visit. So that was one reason they wanted to gin it up. Get it going.

Look, is it high school? Yeah. Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We’re playing, you know, who’s the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slgBrbNXrbs&eurl=http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/

So, who really thinks he wouldn't have done 9/11 just to be able to start a war and make some big bucks?

Suicide? Not likely. Have to protect the people who really did the Anthrax attacksand this suicide closes the case.

Someone else who could have embarrassed Cheney also recently "committed" suicide.

It was anthrax -- sent directly into the heart of the country's elite political and media institutions, to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt), NBC News anchor Tom Brokow, and other leading media outlets -- that created the impression that social order itself was genuinely threatened by Islamic radicalism.

The targets in question should have been the biggest tip-off as to the origins of the anthrax letters. That is, somebody who didn't like Democrats or the "liberal" media so much.

That was the thing that jumped out at me when it was going on, even as they were trying to tie it to Iraq and/or Muslim extremists -- I was like "Shouldn't they be going after more than just Democrats if it was actually some kind of attack on the US?"

No, I always figured it for an inside job by somebody with a bone to pick with the Democratic leadership and liberals in general. In the wake of the recent church shooting where the perpetrator was actively targeting liberals, it shines an unpleasant light on the mindset of violent reactionaries in America, and the likelihood of more political violence to come.