Will Ashcroft Protect Our Dems in Boston Any Better Than the Dems in DC?

[David Zephyr]

When John Ashcroft was itching to ramrod his "Patriot Act" through the United States Congress in the Fall of 2001, were you a little concerned that it was ONLY the leaders of the Democrats within the Senate who were the targets of the Anthrax attack?

Are you still as concerned as I am that there has been no significant activity or noteworthy effort on part of Ashcroft's Justice Department to track down the political assassin who launched America's first bio-weapon within our nation?

With Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft now making their nebulous "warnings" about terror attacks again at our convention sites, am I the only one that feels uneasy about this fox watching our hen house in Boston?

Is this something too dicey to discuss? I hope not.

Give me reasons why I should not be somewhat worried?

[FloridaPat]

1. No you are not alone. Since Bush started taking Cipro 3 weeks

before the anthrax attacks, I would say the government did it. An attack against the Democrats would eliminate that party for years to come. I would imagine it would be a big temptation to the Bush people. Get rid of all the annoying Democrats, get the House, Senate, and not bother with an election.

[David Zephyr]

3. Hmmm. The Press Corp Should Ask Bush If He's Taking Cipro Again.

I had completely forgotten that, FloridaPat. So someone in the White House Press Corp should ask the Scott if the President is taking Cipro currently? Is his family taking it?

Thanks.

[asjr]

2. They may need to hire an anthrax letter watcher at

the convention. As far as I remember Democrats were the only ones who received anthrax letters except Tom Brokaw, and after he received his he stopped saying anything that questioned Shrub.

[bryant69]

4. Probably a good idea to watch them anyway

I mean it's one of those questions we don't have an answer too. On the other hand, if it is the Republicans, nothing will happen at the Democratic convention unless they are planning on no elections and imposing martial law.

Assuming a more limited scenario, they would probably be best staging an ineffectual attack on the Republican convention. That would create the appearance that the Terrorists hate the Republicans and give them the election.

That's my take anyway.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[morgan2]

5. seems the fbi is protecting them too well

they're making such a bigger deal out of the security plans in boston than new york. Possibly trying to get all the bostonians angry with the dems? shutting down like half the city for the convention. Maybe giving an excuse for when something does happen? who knows