Actually he says that, suicide notwithstanding, if Ivins is the culprit, the attacks came from Ft. Detrick, which is a pretty reasonable assertion.
That's not the point of the article anyway. The point is that ABC is acting irresponsibly (though that may be too mild a word) in continuing to protect sources that provided ABC the false information that allowed ABC to perpetuate information that helped make the case for war in Iraq.
If one doesn't accept a few premises: 1) that the anthrax incidents had any impact on whether or not the US went to war in Iraq; and/or 2) that a journalist should reveal his or her sources if those sources disseminate false information that leads to harm; then I can see thinking the article was weak or ineffective. But Greenwald does a pretty decent job bolstering these points.
Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying I respectfully disagree with you as to how bad the article is.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-04 10:51 pm (UTC)That's not the point of the article anyway. The point is that ABC is acting irresponsibly (though that may be too mild a word) in continuing to protect sources that provided ABC the false information that allowed ABC to perpetuate information that helped make the case for war in Iraq.
If one doesn't accept a few premises: 1) that the anthrax incidents had any impact on whether or not the US went to war in Iraq; and/or 2) that a journalist should reveal his or her sources if those sources disseminate false information that leads to harm; then I can see thinking the article was weak or ineffective. But Greenwald does a pretty decent job bolstering these points.
Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying I respectfully disagree with you as to how bad the article is.