That's CC's approach. Clearly he did not read my post about Jon Stewart, in which I sincerely ask if he has a good bodyguard:

"Remember the old TV spot, "Is it soup yet?" We ask a similar question these days of our government, "Is it fascism yet?" Fortunately, no. I know we don't have fascism yet cause Jon Stewart is still on the air. Jon, I hope you never travel anywhere alone. You are a thorn in the side of this administration, hallelujah!

Jon was in top form last night, this clip is genius."

http://www.sheilacasey.com/2007/05/jon_stewart_i_h.html

That was what I believed then; now I think we DO have fascism.

Yes, I got a real estate license in 2005, but then got involved in other things, never used it and let it lapse the following year. I've also done many other things which have no bearing on the facts. My degrees, the countries I've traveled to, my athletic accomplishments--none of that has anything to do with my anthrax research--and neither does a real estate license.

Curious why it seems so significant to you? Do you see some deeper meaning in it?

I am proud to speak the truth about 9/11. Everything Greenwald says about the media lapdogs parroting the govt story on anthrax applies equally to 9/11:

"As always, in Establishment Media World, nothing is more insane or radical than refusing to believe every word the Government says. Even after Iraqi mushroom clouds and the whole litany of Government falsehoods, the establishment hallmark of Seriousness and Sanity is accepting the Government's word. When it says Iraq was behind the attacks, then it was. When they said Hatfill was the culprit, he was. Now that they say that Ivins is, he is, and only "conspiracy theorists" -- comparable to those who disbelieve we landed on the moon -- would question that or demand to see the actual evidence. The FBI is relying, understandably so, on their mindless allies in the media to depict its case against Ivins as so airtight that no real investigation is necessary."

My article says that Patrick and Alibek were involved in developing the technology behind the attacks, not that they carried them out. Patrick is essentially the father of anthrax weaponization. He is now senile and not doing much except drooling.

CC clearly feels threatened and feels the need to attack. That indicates that an emotional response has clouded his judgement.

Either that or he's employed by one of those comapanies who pay people to post comments smearing anyone who gets too close to the truth.

That hadn't occurred to me--that they had to delay, cause if they had found biological weapons in Iraq (or could have made us think they did) that it all would've been pinned on Iraq, QED. But they couldn't make that fly, hence the persecution of Hatfill, and then Ivins.

Here is another possibility:

The original FBI team that was put on the anthrax investigation immediately zeroed in on the CIA contractor Battelle, who runs the labs in West Jefferson, OH and in Dugway, UT. But because this was a false flag operation, and the govt does not disclose its own crimes, that original FBI team was sacked in 2001 and replaced with Richard Lampert and friends, who led them on a merry goose chase for the next seven years while they waited for police state policies to be implemented.

At this point, with the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc, firmly in place, they have to little to fear from our realizing that the attacks were done by the CIA. The detention camps are in place, our Constitutional rights are gone, and they can call us terrorists and hold us indefinitely if we make too much of fuss.

from: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/bruce-ivins-fall-guy-to-cover-secret-anthrax-weaponization-program/

The point I am making is that Greenwald's story is so rife with hyperbole that the case he is trying to make is severely weakened. I cannot read his article and gather an objective viewpoint. Here are some of them: "radically changing its story", "mindlessly passed on from the FBI the week before" Here Greenwald accuses a reporter, who actually was performing her job and reporting the news, of being 'mindless' - this is insulting and completely uncalled-for.

I appreciate when journalists have opinions but when someone is planning to tell me the facts I like it when they just tell me what they know. It is not every journalist's job to tell me what to think. That is best left for Greenwald, and others who believe they know what is best for me.

Frankly I don't come to the same conclusions as Greenwald over the factual matters of the case. What I see instead is someone who has decide before learning anything about the matter that he is convinced that the FBI is lying and is in active collusion with the media, the president's office, and probably the Russian mob, too? Could be any number of organizations.

You yourself have resorted to childishness with your closing sentence :"I have strong suspicions that you are naive or trolling." I don;t actually know what trolling is, but I do know that I read the same article you did, but my opinion may be a bit fresher because I do not assume that Greenwald is correctly interpreting the facts.

with all due respect, what does your comment have to do with me or what I wrote or the case at hand?

Maybe the FBI feels that its job is to defend America from threats and when it heard about this whole anthrax threat, it did its best to live up to its ideals and tried to find out who dunnit. Then the best suspect they came up with was this Ivins guy. But they didn't have enough information. Every time they found something new they tried to keep the public informed, via the mainstream media. But there were some things that were too sensitive to make public, so they kept s few secrets. And then they found a little more information, and right when they were getting close, poor Ivins, troubled deeply enough by something to take his own life, commits suicide. What could be so troubling to him? Guilt? Fear of being caught and disgraced? Mental imbalance adding to these other factors?

If you look at the facts without prejudice, you might find that this line of reasoning works. There are of course other possibilities, but this one is not completely without merit, one of which is that it does not require a lot of conspiratorial imagination.

Of course, if you make your living writing books and articles from a prejudiced viewpoint and you learn that a lot of people like to read this stuff, you just might decide to keep doing it rather than try to be objective.