I woke up to the headlines that a scientist had commited suicide in response to the anthrax investigations closing in on him.
"Wow - they were about to catch the guy!" I thought. "I wonder why he did it?" I read with anticipation an explanation of this scientists actions. WHY did he send the letters? Was he going to extort money? Was he a 'extreme political nut' of either pursuasion?
Crickets.
I posted a response on the diary ABC's Brian Ross is a liar wherein I pointed out that the guys politics are no where to be found in any of the stories.
Why is that?
Why are there no mentions of his politicial leanings or discussions of his possible motivations? And why are there no references using the word TERROR? Why is the AP (at this point at least) seemingly avoiding the use of the words or phrase - TERROR or TERRORISM or DOMESTIC TERRORISM - in describing the actions of the attacker.
Could it be just another attempt to sweep under the rug, the inconvenient truth of a SECOND MAJOR TERROR ATTACK on the US after 9/11? We've all hear the meme 'NO terror attacks since 9/11" parroted by the right wing fundies - and its simply not true. But remind them of the anthrax attacks and they stick their fingers in their ears and go "Nah nah nah - I can't hear you", or reply "Well, that's some sort of domestic crime, not really terrorism..."
I think its VERY important to point out, that the SECOND MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACK of 2001 seems to be resolved with this mans suicide.
IF suicide it was.
Lets watch carefully, and see how the Message Force Multipliers - er, Main Stream Media - sweep the story under the rug. "Disgruntled employee" should show up with the next couple of hours I expect.
"Nothing to see here folks, case closed... move along."