So what is their motive?
You'll notice that so far the FBI has not apparantly release any information about Dr. Ivins' political leanings. Or, they've told the reporters who've refused to publish it ~ and we can only imagine what those political leanings might well be if the MSM doesn't want to tell us.
Scott Shane is one of the best.
He “parrots”, reports, the FBI line. But always has quotes on the other side - and by people who give their own names and don’t hide behind anonymity.
Scott Shane has always wrote articles showing the skeptical side, for one his stories debunked the super-sniffer dog “evidence” on Hatfill.
“You’ll notice that so far the FBI has not apparantly release any information about Dr. Ivins’ political leanings...and we can only imagine what those political leanings might well be ...”
I think the FBI has learned from thousands of investigations that the political leanings of suspects rarely provides any kind of meaningful evidence. The biggest U.S. spies were often conservative politically, or at least cultivated that image. Likewise, being a “good neighbor” and attending church seems to count for little. In short, follow the evidence.
“So what is their motive?”
I have heard from more than one source, that the NYT was thoroughly penetrated by the CIA many years ago, and has functioned, not only as a propaganda arm of the left, but as a propaganda arm of the CIA. The more I look at this issue, the more I suspect that the CIA (or rogue elements from within it) might have been behind the anthrax attacks.