Replies

OK, if we go out on a tin foil limb...

What would be the purpose of a news story about a case that wasn't Anthrax, where the "powder" tested negative, being mixed in with a statement about "OKC". Could that be simply an effort at disinformation?

A pre-emptive propaganda strike by those who suppressed the truth about OKC to rule such thinking out? Kind of like the recent media efforts to prop up Clinton's reputation, like all the recent tales of his supposed efforts against Osama?

I have no conclusions about what went on at OKC but I have no doubt that the public stories of many such disasters in the Clinton era were not accurate and this is time for all involved to come clean.

OK, I have a question...

Is it not possible to get both lung and skin Anthrax poisoning at the same time?
Lets say you open up a letter and find powder. You decide to sniff it to see if it has an odor and you sniff some up in your nose. Then you touch it to feel the texture of it and get it under your nails and then scratch yourself. Lets say your stupid enough to taste it also.

My understanding is that you get one of the 3 types of anthrax poisoning depending on how it entered your system or how it got on you. What if it enters your system through the nose and your mouth and then on your skin? Would you get all 3 types of Anthrax poisoning?

I addressed this to myself as I cannot get it to accept the name ALL as a receiver. Why is that?

I think that the news media simply reports what people are generally interested in watching. There is, generally speaking, no media conspiracy, only the tendency to report what can easily be understood, easily digested. And most reporters, having been "educated" at our universities, simply lack the ability to look at something dispassionately and with reason; their opinions usually get in the way and they're unable to let the facts speak for themselves - especially concerning the particular grievances of conservatives as against those who are their allies in government.

So far as Clinton is concerned, I think there has been, and will continue to be, a concerted effort on the part of many in the media to make him into a successful president. He was hardly that, and I think we're going to be reminded of it for many years to come.

You're right about the disasters of the Clinton presidency not "being reported accurately," and about the need for the government to come clean. It's also time for Americans to grow up a little and for the news media to start using their brains (if such a thing is even remotely possible).