Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   12 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Will an anthrax commission do any better than the Warren and the 9/11 commission?

By       Message Ed Martin     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 3/8/09

- Advertisement -

Representative Rush Holt is proposing an anthrax investigative commission to look into the anthrax attacks shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In spite of the Warren Commission report, we still don’t know the whole story about the Kennedy assassination and in spite of the 9/11 Commission report, we still don’t know the whole story about the 9/11 attacks, and even though there’s been no commission to investigate the anthrax attacks, Holt’s proposal reflects the feeling that we also don’t know the whole story about that, either.

There’s a common thread that runs through all three of these events that provides striking similarities between them.

The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin who shot president Kennedy. This conclusion was arrived at after Oswald had been in turn conveniently assassinated by Jack Ruby and was no longer available for investigation. Jack Ruby conveniently died shortly after shooting Oswald and was also no longer available for investigation, effectively bringing the investigation to an end.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that 19 Islamic terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and since they were all conveniently dead, that brought the investigation to an end.

The FBI quickly focused on Dr. Steven Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the anthrax attacks and made fools of themselves, having to admit they were wrong to the tune of $5.8 million dollars awarded to Hatfill when they could not prove their case. Then, the FBI focused on Dr. Bruce Ivins as another “person of interest” but kept it quiet so as not to appear foolish, again, should that investigation blow up in their faces, too. Then, guess what happened? Ivins supposedly committed suicide, effectively bringing the investigation to an end. Again. The FBI assured us that Ivins was guilty. In an astounding leap of illogic, his suicide proved it.

So, in the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks, the prime suspects are all, conveniently, dead. And, they all conveniently died either before or during the investigation, ending the investigation to the satisfaction of only the investigators. But not to the satisfaction of the rest of us, nor to the satisfaction of Representative Holt.

As is said, dead men tell no tales, neither about their guilt nor their innocence, or anything else. It wasn’t until Ivins in the anthrax case supposedly committed suicide that we were told that the FBI had decided that he was, just like Oswald, the lone, the one and only guilty party. Ivins, just like Oswald, was no longer available for investigation, but, more importantly, just like Oswald, he was no longer available to confront his accusers, to give testimony and evidence and refute their charges.

There’s a pattern here. It seems that the most preferred method of solving our most spectacular crimes is to either pick an already dead man or wait around until someone dies and then pin it on him. As Representative Holt implies with his call for further investigation of the anthrax attacks, that method of solving crimes is just a little bit too convenient.

- Advertisement -

It’ll be interesting and informative to see who fights the hardest to prevent Holt’s proposal to further investigate the anthrax attacks. The kicked dog always barks.

Representative Rush Holt is proposing an anthrax investigative commission to look into the anthrax attacks shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In spite of the Warren Commission report, we still don’t know the whole story about the Kennedy assassination and in spite of the 9/11 Commission report, we still don’t know the whole story about the 9/11 attacks, and even though there’s been no commission to investigate the anthrax attacks, Holt’s proposal reflects the feeling that we also don’t know the whole story about that, either.

There’s a common thread that runs through all three of these events that provides striking similarities between them.

The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin who shot president Kennedy. This conclusion was arrived at after Oswald had been in turn conveniently assassinated by Jack Ruby and was no longer available for investigation. Jack Ruby conveniently died shortly after shooting Oswald and was also no longer available for investigation, effectively bringing the investigation to an end.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that 19 Islamic terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and since they were all conveniently dead, that brought the investigation to an end.

The FBI quickly focused on Dr. Steven Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the anthrax attacks and made fools of themselves, having to admit they were wrong to the tune of $5.8 million dollars awarded to Hatfill when they could not prove their case. Then, the FBI focused on Dr. Bruce Ivins as another “person of interest” but kept it quiet so as not to appear foolish, again, should that investigation blow up in their faces, too. Then, guess what happened? Ivins supposedly committed suicide, effectively bringing the investigation to an end. Again. The FBI assured us that Ivins was guilty. In an astounding leap of illogic, his suicide proved it.

- Advertisement -

So, in the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks, the prime suspects are all, conveniently, dead. And, they all conveniently died either before or during the investigation, ending the investigation to the satisfaction of only the investigators. But not to the satisfaction of the rest of us, nor to the satisfaction of Representative Holt.

As is said, dead men tell no tales, neither about their guilt nor their innocence, or anything else. It wasn’t until Ivins in the anthrax case supposedly committed suicide that we were told that the FBI had decided that he was, just like Oswald, the lone, the one and only guilty party. Ivins, just like Oswald, was no longer available for investigation, but, more importantly, just like Oswald, he was no longer available to confront his accusers, to give testimony and evidence and refute their charges.

There’s a pattern here. It seems that the most preferred method of solving our most spectacular crimes is to either pick an already dead man or wait around until someone dies and then pin it on him. As Representative Holt implies with his call for further investigation of the anthrax attacks, that method of solving crimes is just a little bit too convenient.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Ed Martin is an ordinary person who is recovering from being badly over-educated. Born in the middle of the Great Depression, he is not affiliated with nor a member of any political, social or religious organization. He is especially interested in (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches:

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Conyers' year of tolerating contempt

Removal of the President from Office

You need to read this! Rob Kall's declaration of war

The twelve powers of a President.

Textbook descriptions of George Bush reveal psychopathy, and much worse.

The worst is yet to come; foreclosure fraud is the banksters' least problem