After a Friday story from Washington Post raised series questions about the ability of Bruce Ivins to have carried out the anthrax attacks -- he reportedly "had no access to dry, powdered anthrax," according to experts quoted in their report -- the paper inexplicably spiked their article, without explanation or notice, and replaced it with a wholly different story. Yet, on Sunday, the paper revived the same troubling questions. What the hell is going on here?
It is an online battle between truth and lies.
The last one to stand back up, wins.