‘Follow the Money’ Might Clarify Boston (If Someone Were to Do That)

It’s ‘Cherchez la femme’ in France but ‘Follow the Money’ in America when you wish to understand an event with political ramifications. The Boston Marathon bombing apparently has more politics than dead and maimed, perfectly innocent people. And the more our mighty ‘explain’, the less we understand.

I will not belabor this obvious obfuscation to protect the guilty; I will simply ask some very simple questions and leave it at that. If any have answers, kindly state them, thus putting me out of my misery. So far, none has vouchsafed any explanations whatever to these:

1. The most important question, if we are to understand this attack:

Who paid for this?

We’re told the attackers were long term welfare cases. How did they afford a lengthy trip to Russia, school, a car, the makings of several bombs and their own living expenses for considerable time without any evidence of outside income but welfare? Curious!

2. The rather overdone ‘arrests’ of the two protagonists:

The older brother apparently shot at the cops; no fault in their returning fire if that is so. But a lot of heavily armed robbers and killers have been arrested in Boston with a lot less artillery in use, have they not?

Why was the unarmed younger brother lying doggo inside a boat shot up like a Swiss cheese? The Boston gendarmes and  certainly the Feds are supposed to be pros, are they not? And finally, how did they report the kid had put his non-existant gun into his mouth and shot out his vocal cords in a suicide attempt? That seems difficult for someone lacking a gun…

The whole scene reeks of politics even more than of gunpowder, with a mysterious Saudi who is, then isn’t a ‘person of interest’ and is, then isn’t about to be deported, plus a President painfully reluctant to notice that this mass attack on innocents was carried out by fundamentalist Moslems. The reek of politics is pervasive.

And I would really like to know who paid for it all…