|
***********************************************************
11/20/2001 - Updated 02:37 AM ET
FBI should hunt for right-wing wacko as source
WASHINGTON — Investigators hunting for the source of the anthrax exposure that took the life of Kathy Nguyen,
a New York hospital worker, have ruled out the city's subway system as the place where she came in contact with the deadly
pathogen.
New York's heath commissioner told reporters over the weekend that a check of the subway line the 61-year-old Vietnamese
immigrant used to get to work, visit friends and go shopping tested negative for anthrax. That leaves medical authorities
scratching their heads and sends law enforcement officials back to the drawing board.
While Nguyen's death has stumped investigators, much more is known about the person thought responsible for her death
and that of three others. FBI profilers believe the bioterrorist is a loner with a big chip on his shoulder and no stomach
for directly confronting the targets of his anger.
Put another way, he — profilers say the bioterrorist is probably a man — is a spineless wimp who somehow
managed to get his hands on some anthrax spores. Instead of going toe-to-toe with his enemies, he sent them a deadly dose
of anthrax through the mail. That much is apparent from the FBI profile.
What the profile doesn't tell, but what is equally apparent to me, is that this guy is some kind of right-wing wacko.
How else do you explain his decision to send one anthrax-laden letter to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and what is
now believed to be a second anthrax-laced missive to Sen. Patrick Leahy — two Democrats in a Senate that Democrats
control by a one-vote majority. The other letters were sent to media companies, another favorite target of the radical right.
None of the pathogen was mailed to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott or to Rep. Tom DeLay and Rep. Dick Armey, the leading
House right-wingers. What are the chances that some madman holed up in an Afghan cave would be so selective? What's the likelihood
that someone in Kabul or Baghdad would put Democrats in their cross hairs and spare Republicans?
Does anybody really think that Islamic militants have an ax to grind with just Democrats after two Republican presidents
— George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush — led this nation to war against Iraq and then Osama bin Laden's
terrorist organization?
I don't know what the FBI profilers were thinking when they came up with their assessment of who is responsible for the
anthrax attacks, but I think they missed the most important clue: the man hates Democrats. That means he's probably well versed
in the partisan issues that divide this nation's political parties — and is deeply rooted in the ideology of right-wing
conservatives.
While the vast majority of conservatives are content to use the ballot box for political ends, the bioterrorist the FBI
seeks is willing to murder to bring about a power shift in Washington. At the top of this guy's profile should be the words
"right-wing zealot."
He used the cover of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to launch one of his own. While those who toppled the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon struck at symbols of this nation's financial and military might, the person behind the anthrax attacks
doesn't want to destroy this country, he wants to wrest control of the Senate away from Democrats.
This madman isn't interested in chasing American infidels from Saudi Arabia or ending U.S. support of Israel; he wants
to shift the Senate's balance of power back into the hands of the GOP.
I don't mean to imply that the Republican Party is behind the anthrax attacks. What I am suggesting is that someone with
a warped mind and right-wing political leanings is the likely source of the anthrax letters.
The FBI would do well to follow this lead.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/2001-11-18-wickham.htm
**********************************************************
USA TODAY - Right Wing Wackos
The Free Republic must be held accountable
Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001 by Dan E. Moldea
On September 29, 1999, I posted an open letter at the ultra-conservative FreeRepublic.com--one of the largest and, in
my opinion, most dangerous political forums on the Internet. During the four-day period prior to my letter, these Freeper-sharks
had posted no fewer than a half-dozen defamatory threads about me, including, "Moldea Blackmailed Congress During Clinton's
Impeachment," "The Curious Case of Dan Moldea," and "The Evil of Dan Moldea Exposed." All of these
threads wound up on search engines throughout the Internet.
With the publication of my letter, I made the decision to take the time to challenge any and all such defamations with
my own public responses--which would also appear on those same search engines. I advise others who have been the victims of
Free Republic shark attacks to do the same. (Also see: Los Angeles Times & Washington Post v. Free Republic and Graham
v. Oppenheimer.)
To date, I have received three public retractions for reckless and malicious charges leveled against me.
Here is a portion of my letter:
Over the past several months, friends and colleagues of mine have expressed their concerns about the numerous, baseless
accusations of criminal activity that have been leveled against me at the Free Republic--many of which have wound up on search
engines throughout the Internet. As a tribute to your effectiveness, I have admittedly been harmed by the lynch-mob atmosphere
revolving around many of these posts, particularly those which have been not only false and misleading but reckless and malicious.
In short, many of you have drawn ridiculous and irresponsible conclusions about people, subjects, and events you know
nothing about. And most of you have done so under false names, which is very frustrating to people, like me, who have to live
with these charges without any means of making those responsible accountable for what they write.
Although I have no objection to those who use cyberspace handles for benign purposes, it is simply unfair that someone
may state false facts and even allege criminal behavior anonymously. And I believe that making such statements without giving
one's name is not only irresponsible but cowardly. The perennial argument that anonymity protects against retribution is lame
and disingenuous.
The fact is that many of you post anonymously under your [Internet] handles (i.e. moneyrunner, sourcery, Doctor Raoul)
to evade responsibility for your mindless speculations, half-baked opinions, and poorly-sourced facts. When people have no
responsibility for what they say, they are apt to say anything. And the posts from the recent threads against me serve as
a testament to that.
Thus, I respectfully ask those Freepers who do not accuse anonymously to stand up against those who do--and, in the process,
help to curtail the venomous incivility endemic to this web site among those who disagree, especially when they are using
fake names. . . .
That was the reason for my first Free Republic thread on May 19, 1999. I posted an article, "I Did Not Write 'The
Mob President,'" initially on my web site and then on yours. The reason? One of your Freeper colleagues, who used an
anonymous handle, had earlier posted a published story about President Clinton, called "The Mob President," and
then falsely credited me with writing this piece--which I did not write and with which I completely disagreed.
After seeing my thread on the Free Republic, the person responsible did the honorable thing: [she] came online and accepted
responsibility. That should have been the end of the matter, but my friends and I continued to see this story posted and reposted
all over the web, still with my byline. Other than your super-responsible Alamo-Girl, who has made sincere efforts to correct
this situation, I have been alone, trying to correct the record.
Consequently, over the past several days, I have been searching through Free Republic's archives and posting my side of
the story on those threads in which I have been accused of something, particularly something criminal.
From now on, when someone seeks information about me on a search engine and clicks onto a Free Republic thread, they will,
hopefully, get my version of events to balance the other things that have been written.
That is the sole purpose for what I have been doing here in the belly of the beast. And, not surprisingly, I have been
taking a ton of grief because I have the audacity to come here and defend myself.
Even though most of you couldn't care less about me, I still ask you to do what I have always done: Stand up and identify
yourself when you put something in writing.
A final note (December 2000): Obviously, I am concerned about the threat these people pose. In the midst of the 2000 presidential
election, hundreds of anonymous activists within the Free Republic community appointed themselves as storm troopers for the
Far Right. Not content simply to defeat Al Gore politically, they wanted to destroy him personally--in a manner not unlike
the Free Republic's relentless effort against President Bill Clinton.
And they will surely continue to level false and misleading charges, anonymously, against the supporters of Clinton-Gore--while
defaming at will. Already, numerous Freepers have compiled an updated "Hollywood blacklist," naming a variety of
liberal celebrities. Also, although Free Republic claims not to be a hate site, it permitted Freepers to name the Democrats
they hate most. And many of these Free Republic posters--including several who claim to be Christians--joked about and even
encouraged the murder of journalists.
During the dramatic aftermath of the November 7 balloting, these right-wing zealots successfully organized anti-Gore rallies
and protests throughout the United States. In effect, they decided to establish a clear public presence and to make FreeRepublic.com
"a household name." With the election of George W. Bush, they are now embolden and will not just go away. Already,
GOP activists are reaching out to Freepers and asking them to participate in a "ground war" against the anticipated
critics of the new administration.
A newfound accountability for what these Freepers do and say should accompany their increased visibility. Unfortunately,
it is unlikely that they will suddenly accept responsibility for their actions and statements voluntarily.
They are going to need help.
Sincerely,
Dan E. Moldea
(Banned by the Free Republic on January 3 while trying to post a defense.)
Dan E. Moldea is an author
www.moldea.com
Freerepublic Must Be Held Accountable
|
