NOT AT: What do you think?

[Guest guest]

Hi Marilyn,

 

> Just read this and wanted to pass it along.. wondering if anyone else

> saw it and what your thoughts may be on this one.. I HOPE it's not

> true..............

>

> Anthrax Attacks: U.S. Expert Did It?

>

> By Cathryn Conroy, Netscape News Editor

> The person behind the anthrax attacks in the United States that have

> killed five people and scared millions of others is believed to be

> an American expert in biological warfare who is on a quest to get

> increased funding for U.S. research on biological weapons.

 

A plausable scenario .. no doubt it is an American .. but grasping this

is like saying firemen start fires in order to get more funds for their

training. It has been done before .. but they were idiots and were soon

caught. ALL chemical/biological/radiological warfare

researchers/experts

in the USA are known by federal agencies and there is no doubt that

these folks were the first suspected and investigated by those agencies.

 

> At least that's the speculation of the magazine published by

> Greenpeace Germany.

 

Which gives me no warm fuzzies as this left-wing chauvenistic outfit is

not one to normally do a lot of homework - they are rumor mongers and a

bunch of folks looking for a sword to fall on.

 

> " The U.S. delegation believe it is an inside job.

 

If the US Delegation they speak of is also a Greenpeace organization, we

have two peas in a pod.

 

> Their members also have more information than has been made public, "

> Kirsten Brodde, a reporter for the magazine, told Reuters.

 

I think that is a fair statement - any investigative agency will have

more information that they are willing to give the public .. ;-p And

Reuters is also .. in my opinion .. a yellow journalism organization.

 

> The information for the article came from a source with the U.S.

> delegation at the United Nations biological weapons conference in

> Geneva last week.

 

Not really narrowing it down much - huh? And even if this so-called

source did have knowledge, it could be one of those deals where a safe

answer was given to a twisted question and then manipulated to fit the

hypothesis of the slanted writer. " Mr. Jones - is it true that you no

longer beat your wife? "

 

> Anthrax: Get the facts. Learn the symptoms. Find out what to do with

> suspicious packages.

 

Without Booger Bears and Who Dos behind every tree, Greenpeace would

have no justification for violating domestic and international laws, for

taking hostages, for piracy on the high seas, for trespassing and damage

of public and private property and all the other things they do that I

would happily shoot them for if I were still in law enforcement - and be

totally justified in doing so.

 

> And while the U.S. government isn't confirming the facts, no one is

> denying them either.

 

For at least 50 years, it has been US government policy to neith deny or

confirm information that they don't want to put out - so this statement

means nothing.

 

> In fact, Attorney General John Ashcroft has given signals that he

> believes it is a domestic source. Speculating that the anthrax

> attacker's intent was to cause panic and not kill anyone,

 

Here is where we have to slow down and read it well. Ashcroft and the

FBI have long believed the attacks were of domestic origin .. whether it

is a first or forty-eleventh generation American is not a point as it is

most likely an American citizen. BUT - Ashcroft has not said what is

reported below and the way this statement is throw together could and

was probably intended to make the quick reader think that the ASSUMPTION

reported below was from Ashcroft .. it is not - it is from Brodde.

 

> Brodde wrote in her article: " It seems the attacker...wanted to

> force through an increase in the budget for U.S. research on

> biological weapons. "

 

And this is a wild-ass statement for sure ... has little credibility to

me. Who knows if the person cared who was harmed and the increase in

funding for research would not benefit a single researcher, it would go

to a well-funded, well-established, well-equipped and well-trusted and

tested organization that could meet the high security requirements for

compartmentalized access to Top Secret and even Cosmic Top Secret info.

 

> When Reuters questioned an FBI spokesman about the Greenpeace

> magazine article, he replied that the agency is pursuing a number

> of leads but no arrests are imminent.

 

Probably the only statement reported as it was really spoken ... ;-p

 

I have supported Ducks Unlimited and the Bass Society since I was a

teenager, was a member of the Kentucky Conservation Club for many years

and supported the Cousteau Society while the Old Man was still alive and

kicking - so my goals and the stated goals of Greenpeace are not far

apart - the biggest difference is I, and most members of the above, are

sincere and many of the Greenpeace hoodlems are members so they can have

a cause to justify their criminal and anti-social behavior.

 

This is my opinion .. there are obviously some exceptions but as an

organization, I think Greenpeace sucks!

 

Y'all keep smiling, Butch http://www.AV-AT.com