Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe terrorists find all sorts of reasons to hate us. On Tuesday came word that the deadliest biological assault on the United States may be linked to the rejection of the terror suspect by a Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority sister decades ago. That is offered as an explanation of why the accused U.S. Army bio-warfare scientist allegedly drove seven hours from his home to mail anthrax-laced letters from a mailbox near the sorority's Princeton University office, according to the Associated Press.
What we learned last week, after the suicide of Bruce E. Ivins, was disquieting enough without the twisted love angle. If you can believe the recent leaks from the FBI on its most important unsolved crime -- which killed five and sickened 17, immobilized the federal government and traumatized the nation -- it was a clean-shaven, white, God-fearing Catholic guy who done it. Despite a government anxious to find yet another example of Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11, it quickly became clear to experts that the anthrax used in the only WMD attack on our nation was a sophisticated product traceable to our own biological weapons labs. This is not surprising, because the United States has long been a leader in this field.
Our ostensible reason for developing the world's most sophisticated arsenal of deadly biological weapons is that the United States needs to learn how to prevent such attacks from deranged outsiders. Now we have yet another reminder that the enemy may be us, and that at least some of the folks who develop weapons like to find occasions to use them. In this case, the terrorist the FBI was about to charge with homicide was a nut case who nonetheless received the highest security clearance to work on the most dangerous of weapons deep within our own military-industrial complex.
This is yet another disappointment for those writing the basic Bush administration narrative in which the terrorist is always some Islamo-fascist guy. That's the assigned role that Saddam Hussein failed at so miserably. Remember when New York Times reporter Judith Miller was breathlessly reporting every sighting of a rusting Iraqi RV as one of Hussein's biological weapons labs to justify the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Gosh, how the military-industrial complex must miss the Soviet Union, which could be trusted to match us in the high-tech game of dispensing mass death.
Of course our government, which has never disowned the right to build and use nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, has long insisted that we alone are to be trusted with the creation of those devilish devices. Others are judged either too irrational, evil or merely incompetent to be allowed WMD, whereas we alone, with the unique experience of having killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, pose no threat. That others might not see it our way, particularly after recent incidents, such as the missing nukes that crossed the United States on that errant B-52 flight, or the anthrax attack allegedly conducted by one of our top bioweapons scientists, is understandable.
The larger problem is that we no longer take the threat of WMD as seriously as we should. We focused on the nonexistent WMD in Iraq while ignoring the spread of nuclear technology from Pakistan to North Korea, Iran and Libya under the guidance of A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's popularly revered "Islamic bomb." As former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in his memoir, the Bush administration seized upon the WMD issue in Iraq only because it was convenient: "The United States did not go to war in Iraq solely because of WMD. In my view, I doubt it was even the principal cause. Yet it was the public face that was put on it."
The public face of terrorism was a bearded Muslim armed with WMD. No wonder we were caught off guard when the only person to ever attack us with WMD turns out to be, apparently, an active congregant at St. John the Evangelist Church in Frederick, Md., and a highly trusted employee of the U.S. military.
Not that our sleuths weren't forewarned. As Ivins' therapist, social worker Jean Duley, reported to the Maryland District Court last month in a hearing to obtain a restraining order: "As far back as the year 2000, the respondent has actually attempted to murder several other people ... he is a revenge killer when he feels that he's been slighted ...especially towards women. ... He has been forensically diagnosed by several top psychiatrists as a sociopathic, homicidal killer."
In any case, he was one of us.
Robert Scheer is author of a new book, "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America."
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C.
53 Comments so far
Show Allthere seem to be a disproportionate number of patsies vs. criminal cabal players who end up caught or dead. So much for the rule of law.
RFK assassination for example.... CIA did it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0eh0hRlfCU&feature=related
secretarybird (August 6th, 2008 1:44 pm) said:
""The anthrax was another false flag attack, as was nine eleven, indeed it was part of the same psyop."
And conspiracy theorists miss the point, too: the biggest conspiracy of all - the government lying and deceiving to justify invading Iraq."
Secretarybird almost has it right. The biggest conspiracy is the mass hypnosis that makes us believe that government itself is necessary at all.
What simple, common sense steps can ordinary people take to snap out of trance and abolish the state? Stop asking the goverment to do things for you (or to others). Understand that the state is the Wizard of OZ. Just like the main characters of the movie, you don't need the Wizard. In fact, the Wizard is out to get you.
All authority of the state (all states) is illusory. The only difference between the state and the mafia is the degree of collective popular belief in their respective legitimacies. Both are violent criminal enterprises and nothing more. Discussing what the state may or may not "legally" do is like teenagers getting wound up about the rules of a role-playing game - as if it were real. Granted, the government can actually affect our lives, but only because a critical mass of people literally make it real by believing in the legitimacy of its authority.
Appealing to the state to control people in some special way that you would like them to be controlled is delusional and self-defeating. When you appeal to the state for any reason, you are only feeding the beast - a beast that ultimately cannot be controlled. We must simply turn our backs on the state. Then it will die - leaving unblemished freedom in its absence. Unless you are willing to give up the state completely, stop complaining and get used to the chains on your wrists and ankles. You put them there yourselves.
If I had one wish from a genie in a bottle, it would be that no one would ever again believe in the legitimacy of any political/contractual authority that was not derived from unanimous consent.
Memory_Hole's interesting post of August 6 includes this:
During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax — tests conducted at Ft. Detrick — revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since — as ABC variously claimed — bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."
Ah, bentonite! It's been years since I've given it a thought.
A type of clay very common and very inexpensive in the U.S. Has many industrial uses. For centuries it's been used to clarify wine (dried and ground fine--the bentonite, that is). Home winemakers still use it for that purpose. I remember buying small bags of it at my friendly, neighborhood Wine Art store in the 1970s.
Little did we home winemakers realize that this deadly agent would become a favored additive of Islamofascist bioterrorists 30 years hence! Had we realized the awesome, deadly potential of this infernal mineral, we would have held the world hostage ... or at least blackmailed the U.S. government into abolishing the BATF, giving away free grapes in the fall, and honoring winemaking greats Walter S. Taylor, Konstantine D. Frank, Doug Morehead, and Brother Timothy with commemorative postage stamps!
I wouldn't be surprised if any traces of bentonite in the anthrax came from dust in the Ft. Detrick air. They probably privatized the custodial service at the labs and awarded a no-bid contract for keping the floors clean to KBR. ...
He was offering to spill the beans on someone at the FBI or CIA who was very high ranking. They had to kill him before he talked. Can't let the cat out of the bag until the country is in hell and it won't matter either way what you know by then everyone will be living like its Iraq, here. Snipers shooting at you when you step out your front door. No food, electricity, heat, water. Starve in yoru own homes, just like we did to them. Pay back is a mother fucker.
So! So what, remember all you sorority sisters keep 'merica save put out to everybody who comes along...specially 'nerdy Catholic white boys'...and remember BJ's aren't sex we learned that from the last President
If this guy was so sick what does this say about the system which allowed him to have clearance? And just who & how was it determined a suicide?
Oh yeah they told us ....So!
Of course, the rather obvious questions are ...
1) If this guy was a 'patsy', who are the person or persons really involved in this attack?
2) If this person was involved, what was he offering to talk about in exchange for a 'plea bargin'? Federal prosecutors don't tend to give those out for free. Instead they want something in return. Usually information about others involved in the crime. And typically they are offered to lower-level people in the crime to get them to provide testimony against higher ranking people.
I've got just one question: where's the note?
Hell, I guess that a country that can willingly believe a lone gunman shot Kennedy with a "Magic Bullet" for 40 years, That they won WW2 singlehandedly, that Cuba is a threat that requires a 40 year embargo, and that Vietnam was an honourable war, well......is stupid and gullible enough to believe any crap you lay before them.
"If you can believe the recent leaks from the FBI" om the Anthrax attack...
"If you can believe Bush on Iraqs WMD"
"If you can believe the US "Justice" department on ANYTHING"
That is the key, isn't it...The Republicans have so twisted and corrupted all branches of the US government that each citizen has to ask himself that question daily...
Didn't read the article until this morning, and the previous comments have already effectively pointed out the major flaws and deficiencies in Scheer's effort.
The corporate media, including the chancred Gray Whore, are promoting the Official Version, of course. No surprise there.
Perhaps NOVA or "Popular Mechanics" will be brought in to add their weight to the Lone Nut Theory, if the Official Version doesn't sit well with a significant bloc of the audience.
I recall feeling uneasy that the government was in recess in August before 9/11 happened, given the low threshhold of competency the Bush administration had already established. Vacationing for the entire month?
I have that same uneasy feeling this August, since it appears to me a dereliction of duty in a time of national emergency. Not with respect to the Bush administration however; with respect to those who should already have been holding them to account for their crimes.
The timing of this occurrence, the apparrent suicide of one we never knew was suspect and the rapid closing of the case - 'it now will never come before a jury' chortles CNN - are meant to increase our general unease and fear. Everyone's on vacation letting this malaise sweep over the land.
Every month now has its own psychological ploy. This one's a doozy, and I would say they are playing for time, running out the impeachment clock, serving up the distractions, even if they involve loss of life and lying about that in a baldfaced manner. See how compliant the news media all are.
Whatever follows will be to further inculcate fear and benefit the regime. Meanwhile, there are attempts being made to counteract, such as Susskind's new book on Bush's forged letter. May they succeed. Please, dear God, may they succeed.
We are witnessing the opening forays in a new war, perhaps the most important one for our democracy. Dr. David Kelley's death ushered in British compliance with Bush's rush to war with Iraq. Is Iran now on the table with the fluttering of the anthrax flag? (See folks, we've got it and we can use it.)
Vacation time? The storm clouds are gathering. Keep a cool head, folks; be prepared for shock and awe. The end game is beginning.
have you ever dealt with a pathological liar?
it is almost impossible to confront them with their lies because they have no conscience and no shame. their only aim is to get through the next 5 minutes after which the confronter will give up in disgust leaving the liar to go about his/her business.
Why is there no mention of Dr. Philip Zack, much more a person of interest than Hatfill or Ivins. He came under intense scrutiny after the attacks, but that investigation mysteriously faded away.
The Coincidence Incompetence Accidental (CIA) theory that is the official version is absurd.
The same people behind 9/11 were obviously behind the Anthrax attacks. This was not a 1 man operation. The dude is a human sacrifice to suppress any investigation by a new administration. Dead men tell no tales. Osama might soon be blown to smithereens in a way that makes ID impossible. That will close 9/11 too, right.
Apropos of the letters mailed to Daschle and Leahy, Ivins was a Democrat and voted Democratic according to an article I read a couple days ago.
ONE OF US
Who are WE?
He seems to excluding the regular Islamic folk living in this country from the rest of the article.
WE are now a global populace.
Sift through the finger pointing and seive the psychos out.
No matter what their color, race, religion, mental bent.
Quietly, and without alot of fanfare, the federal gov't under Bush has begun stockpiling and experimenting with biological agents like anthrax, ebola, bird flu, and other diseases on the island of Oahu, in Hawaii. The huge military presence there (Pearl Harbor, Schofield Barracks, etc) makes this an excellent location.
But, theres another reason: Oahu is an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, so if something got loose, there'd be little chance it would spread: Oahu's considerable military presence would then be used to quarantine the island at gunpoint.
When I was staying on Oahu a couple of years ago, I was amazed at how many state government commercials were broadcast explaining to the locals what procedure to follow in case there were an outbreak of 'bird flu': stay in your home, don't go outside, don't go to work, wait for the authorities to come to you. I'd never seen this kind of effort to inform the citizenry of how to deal with a biological epidemic in other states I'd lived in (mostly California). I was and AM deeply suspicious. NOTHING would surprise me about this government anymore.
In retrospect, the purpose of the anthrax attacks, coming in the wake of the events of 9/11, is perfectly clear. It was to instill fear of Muslims, and it is now an indisputable fact that the anthrax originated in US Gov't labs. As to the question of who was responsible for the attacks, that is quite another matter.
The fact that the anthrax originated in a US gov't lab, I think reenforces the case of those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, because the two events are so closely coupled.
"THE DANGER IS ALWAYS GREATEST FROM WITH IN"...Machiavelli says it very simply...problem is...no one likes simple explanations...
"THE DANGER IS ALWAYS GREATEST FROM WITH IN"...Machiavelli
How convenient that just before Bush leaves office, he clears up loose ends and how convenient for the scientist to commit suicide (if he did). Too many people who have been known to buck the system seem to commit suicide. Ah, who believes anything that comes out of the White HOuse. How about the media reporting some truths about McCain who is not a lily white innocent so called war hero. And what about his wife like who wants such a woman as the first lady? Just once I would like to hear one thing that is true and free of deception.
Quoting from the article by Patrick Martin, "Mounting Questions Over US Anthrax Probe and Scientist's Alleged Suicide."
"The American media has consistently downplayed the evident right-wing political motivation of the anthrax attacks. One incident, reported by the Brad Blog web site, captures this deliberate political censorship. When the site contacted Tom Ivins, brother of the deceased scientist, and asked him what Bruce Ivins's political views were, 'He was surprised by the question, and although he said he'd been speaking with reporters all day ... none of the other reporters, not one of them, had asked him about his brother's political affiliations, leanings, or beliefs.'
"What these views are remains unclear, beyond his professed support to the most socially conservative tenets of Roman Catholicism. But the indifference to the question shows the determination, on the part of the media and political elite, to attribute terrorism exclusively to Islamic fundamentalists while ignoring the violent activities of the ultra-right."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/anth-a04.shtml
Quoting Noam Chomsky in a recent interview:
"... what I write causes extreme anger for the very simple reason that I use the U.S. government's official definition of terrorism from the official U.S. code of laws. If you use that definition, it follows very quickly that the U.S. is the leading terrorist state and a major sponsor of terrorism and since that conclusion is unacceptable, it arouses furious anger.
"But the problem lies in the unwillingness to recognize that your own terrorism is terrorism. This is not just true of the United States, it's true quite generally. Terrorism is something that they do to us. In both cases, it's terrorism and we have to get over that if we're serious about the question." (Click here for the entire interview — http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15416.htm )
And this from a Noam Chomsky article in CounterPunch:
" ... terrorism (according to the US definition of terrorism, from the official US code of laws) is 'the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature … through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear,' typically targeting civilians.
"The British government's definition is about the same: 'Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause.'
"These definitions seem fairly clear and close to ordinary usage. There also seems to be general agreement that they are appropriate when discussing the terrorism of enemies.
"But a problem at once arises. These definitions yield an entirely unacceptable consequence: it follows that the *US* is a leading terrorist state." (Asterisks added.)
Click here for the entire Chomsky article, "The Terrorist in the Mirror," http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky01242006.html
Therefore, the United States government's "war on terrorism" is a joke, and a macabre joke at that.
If we want to end terrorism, then the changes that are needed are not the phony changes proposed by con-man Barack Obama; but rather are changes that can only come about with the establishment of a viable third party movement in the United States.
Vote Nader. Or else vote McKinney. Or else vote socialist.
Make it easy on yourself: vote your conscience.
Make it easy on yourself: don't vote for anybody who sanctions terrorism — which, as Professor Chomsky points out, according to the US Code of Laws is defined as: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature … through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."
This anthrax story from the beginning leaves me with questions:
The timing of the anthrax letters, convenient for the US governments' crackdown on civil liberties and wars of aggression?
The credibility of the person claiming he was threatening and violent, she has a violent criminal record whereas Ivans' does not.
If Ivans was suicidal. vengeful and in fear of his life, is this the reasonable outcome of being an innocent man targeted by the full weight of the politicized FBI?
The letters were written as if by a Muslim seeking revenge, to Leahy among others, who is among the most outspoken critic of Bush's crusade, would not a terrorist go after Bush's most ardent cheerleaders?
The government has said he sent abnormal emails before he died. Do we know it was him that sent those emails? Emails seem to appear and disappear strangely where Bush's government is concerned.
Hungarians still say, "Well, we lost mo'
at Mohatch." That's an allusion to the battle of Mohacs, against invading Turks.
One out of every two Hungarians ended up dead. Even Columbus wiped out by a nuclear bomb would fall short of equivalent destruction. I think building ourselves up through dreams of apocalypse
is an awfully, strange, sick and peculiarly immature American way to go.
The French still have to deal with Algerian terrorism, don't they? but they're not in a perpetual tizzy about it.
As others have noted, Scheer is and has always been a Zionist. Probably the one good thing about this article is that he is finally beginning to admit that 'Muslims' are being set up as straw men in the bogus GWOT.
In the news, he's looked more and more like
he actually did it all day long. Not very
substantial evidence, I'm first to admit. But all of you with your innuendo that he didn't do it may be falling into the original
McCain-- news hour implication trap that it
was the Iraqis, al Quaeda, Eastasia or Eurasia (what was the third scare entity in
"1984"-- Atlanta or something? The Atlanta
Center for Disease Control? Atlanta-Europa (can't remember)? Oh no, we Americans wouldn't do it. Not even we Brits. The targeting of two such hated American Democrats (for being good guys and reasonable persons every day) definitely does seem a compelling clue to me-- far more than the Rove-like drivel note saying, "I'm Muslim."
The egoism of thinking we're at more risk
from al Qaeda than people have been in
in the past from plague or Russian rockets
or Polio and a thousand other historic risks
is so blatant. Even people who hate Bush show a great tendency to wallow in all this stuff and will do anything to draw things out of proportion.
Their death or maiming by car accident or social/financial maiming by AIDS seems far more likely just today, and tomorrow it will be disintegration that spread to the body from the education-deprived brain, and the day after that too much exposure in the daily sauna bath that envelops us all.
The whole case against Ivans' is a circumstantial mess, scripted for mass consumption. The general idea presented is that he was a paranoid wacko, a lone troubled deviant who took medications for his wackiness. Apparently, some of the most damning evidence was that he "ranted on the Internet."
The US populace collectively exhales "oh yeah, he did it" , once again our uber flatfoots were hot on the trail of the most likely suspect. Remember what safety means kids, everyone is guilty!
Now the Doc that does the post will get a brain tumor.
Notice how Israel's nuclear arsenal is not a WMD to be concerned about. Iran, Lybia, Pakistan and North Korea yes, but Israel no. Is the author not being a tad biased here? None of these countries are as dangerous as Israel, and none except Israel has captured the American government. Who is dangerous then? Who should we worry about? Who is most likely to start a war? Which one is known for ignoring UN resolutions and violating international law with gay abandon? Is this not typical?
Can you say "Lee Harvey Oswald"…
This is such an amateur story that even the mainstream media are having trouble keeping to the approved script.
On top of all the other more serious crimes against the Administration - you can now add 'insulting our intelligence'. It would be mildly funny if it weren't so darn tragic. The country is being run by megalomaniac twits.
Reports on this is too quick to claim suicide. It might have been a gov't test to be used on Democrats, News reporters, and anyone else who wouldn't adopt the Bush agenda. In other words, Bruce Ivin may have been tacken out.
The Elephant in the Living Room
http://tinyurl.com/5ka6r2
"So, Alastair Campbell feels partly responsible for the death of Dr David Kelly (BBC's Sunday AM programme, 8 July 2007), and says that it was "the worst period of my life".
In Will Woodward's piece on the Campbell diaries (Guardian, 9 July 2007), it is stated that "Mr Campbell has held back until today extracts covering the period for which he is most famous, the dispute with the BBC in 2003 which led to the suicide of the government scientist David Kelly". Further, Woodward states that "Kelly was the source of a story which the reporter Andrew Gilligan used to claim that the government had "sexed up" a dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction".
It is probably true to say that Woodward's interpretation of the David Kelly fiasco has become the official mantra, and that to this day not a single dissenting voice has been heard in the mainstream media.
This is inexcusable, for, at the heart of the David Kelly affair, lies an indisputable story of blatant subversion of due process of law in the United Kingdom, due process of law being itself the very basis of "democracy", which system we purport to be in a position to export to the rest of the world.
In a series of six letters published by The Guardian in 2004, one letter published by The New Statesman in 2005, and a long article published by Global Research on the Internet in November of last year, we (doctors and lawyers) have attempted to draw to the attention of the world these facts (amongst others):
1) Dr David Kelly's death has not been the subject of a proper inquest, as required by English law. Indeed, his sudden, violent and suspicious death has not been properly investigated, as required by European law.
2) In English law, in order for a verdict of suicide to be returned, suicide must be proved to a criminal level of proof, that is beyond reasonable doubt, a very high level of proof.
3) Lord Hutton, in his inquiry (which purported to obviate the need for an inquest), possessed none of the statutory powers automatically available to a coroner, and crucially he could not, and did not, hear evidence under oath. He therefore was unable to prove anything, let alone suicide which is notoriously difficult to prove in the absence (as in this case) of a suicide note.
Our serious and legitimate concerns have never been answered.
There is no doubt that the Hutton Inquiry descended into attempting to establish who, between the BBC and the Government, was responsible for the "suicide" of Dr David Kelly, when from the outset "suicide" had been assumed wrongly and inexcusably by all (but a very few), including by Lord Hutton, when "suicide" was never proven.
Thus, regrettably, we conclude that the Hutton Inquiry was indeed a "whitewash", not only on its conclusions with regard to the BBC and the Government, but much more importantly in its failure to establish in the proper manner exactly how Dr David Kelly died. It appears to us that the Hutton Inquiry was no more than an elaborate cover up which sought to mislead the British public and the world about something as important as the cause of death of a man who was inextricably linked to, and beginning to question, America's and the United Kingdom's purported reasons for waging aggressive war on a sovereign state, Iraq. All this of course amounts, quite apart from all the other implications, and arguments to be had, to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and the question has to be asked why such a high risk strategy in such a high profile case was considered necessary.
We are talking of nothing less serious than the possibility of political murder and cover up of same in a leading Western democracy, the United Kingdom. Surely, it is imperative that a full and proper inquest is conducted without further delay into the death of Dr David Kelly, to attempt to remove once and for all the huge stain which the David Kelly affair has left on the reputation of this country?"
Nothing like a "suicide" to end an investigation. When the powers-that-be need someone out of the picture that person will be gone. End of story. Whether it's suicide, plane crashes, heart attacks, doesn't matter. They're goners. Makes me think of my favorite line from The Godfather:
MICHAEL: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
KAY: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.
MICHAEL: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?
Here's another FBI "mystery": their Most Wanted Terrorist List has Usama bin Laden listed with his crimes, but the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks are STILL not listed as one of his terrorist crimes, nearly 7 years later. See http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
So what does this mean?
==snip==
If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks. 

The letter sent to Leahy contained this message:
We have anthrax.
You die now.
Are you afraid?
Death to America.
Death to Israel.
Allah is great.
By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished.
Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.
During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."
full article:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/
Is it just coincidence that the Anthrax laced letters were addressed to Senator Patrick Leahy (who just happened to be a democrat and who happened to lead the Judiciary Committee) and Senator Tom Daschle (who just happened to be a Democrat and who happened to be the Majority leader).
This article is sub-par when it comes to Sheer's normal writings. He's making the assumption that the government story about Ivins being responsible for the Anthrax letters is accurate. I seriously doubt that.
Truthseeker @ 2:56:
And, while you're at it, maybe you'd like to include those
patsies who have gone before: DC Madam, V. Foster, L. H. Oswald, J. Ruby, Sirhan Sirhan, and on and on...
I agree with Memory_Hole. Ivans was a patsy. And all patsies MUST BE SUICIDED before they can talk and tell the truth about who was really behind these attacks. Remember how the Democrats were the ones targeted to receive the Anthrax.
That's the way these people (cheney bush & co) work. If they can't drive someone to commit the suicides themselves (someday I should try and count up how many of these there have been since 2001), the patsy will suffer an unfortunate fatal 'accident' of some type.
No one has ever helped these people out and lived to tell the truth about who put them up to it.
US in March 2003 had 24,000 TONS of Sarin, VX, and mustard agents. Anniston, Alabama had 77,000 rockets filled with these agents. Iraq had zero.
"...He has been forensically diagnosed by several top psychiatrists as a sociopathic, homicidal killer."
Do we know this? Has it been corroborated?
Why were the victims Daschle, Lahey, and a Florida tabloid that printed pictures of the Bush twins drunk on the floor of a bar?
"Report: FBI Harassed Ivins; Social Worker Has Troubled Past
FOXNews - 1 hour ago
Bruce E. Ivins, the FBI's prime suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, spent last fall drinking heavily, taking large numbers of pills and typing ranting e-mails late at night, a fellow scientist says."
Now it seems that the Bio-Terror Attack which was used to inflict the USAPATRIOT Act upon the American people has taken it's 6th victim. Is the FBI covering up the people who fingered Senators Daschel and Lehey as targets? Heckovajob! If we can't trust the Fascist Bastards Incorporated (FBI) then what's the use.
Mr. Sheer ,as usual, conveniently "forgets" to mention few hundreds of "Jewish bombs", or other WMDs controlled by war criminals like Sharon, Barack, Natanjahu ....
For a more thorough, and skeptical, article on the alleged anthrax murderer, check out Glenn Greenwald's piece:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/
No doubt in my mind that the dick and his neocon, neo-nazi corpofacist acolytes planned, and executed these murders. The fact that it was bungled before going nationwide points to the same modis operandi as the execution of the war...
unravel the conspiracy... let honesty prevail
John McCain, who suggested on the David Letterman show that the spores came from Iraq, would like to continue the irrational fear White House.
Irrational Fear is of course an American industry, and the Repugs are always for private enterprise, wishing that it would replace government altogether.
This view, irrational in itself, forgets that private enterprises, like different governments, always involve an organization.
The chance seems good that if all government stinks, then all private enterprise does, too.
Rather than subscribe to this mistaken view, I'd like to make a proposal. Anyone who thinks that either government or bidnis is intrinsically bad is hereby excluded from public (and private) office.
I agree with Memory_Hole (1:09). No one should be surprised if the anthrax attacks were actually planned in Cheney's office.
"The anthrax was another false flag attack, as was nine eleven, indeed it was part of the same psyop."
And conspiracy theorists miss the point, too: the biggest conspiracy of all - the government lying and deceiving to justify invading Iraq.
Sheer misses the point. The point is not that the anthrax culprit was some white guy in the u.s. but that the anthrax came from a US bioweapons lab, and there is absolutely no reason we should believe the government´s silly story about patsy Ivins. The anthrax was another false flag attack, as was nine eleven, indeed it was part of the same psyop.
Normally, I enjoy Scheer's writing, but here he missed the mark. While one cannot yet say that there was no basis whatsoever for concluding that Ivins was innocent, thus far there is no basis for saying that he was guilty. The putative motive is patently absurd. The connection to the Princeton sorority is both exaggerated and factually inaccurate. The so-called "therapist" was not a therapist. She was an entry level "drug counselor" with a checkered past and a history of criminality and drug use. I'm shocked that a writer of Mr. Scheer's quality would so blatantly mis-characterize the facts.
I suppose in his zeal to make a larger point-- that terror does not come wearing a turbin-- he became careless. But I suggest that we continue to scrutinize this case despite his eagerness to score a minor debating point. If Ivins is a patsy, that means that the real perpetrator (or, if they are indeed members of the US gov't or independent terror contractors-- i.e., perpe-traitors), we need to know that.
There appear to be major questions about Jean Duley's credibility and background. That ought to be looked into before we accept her remarks at face value.
The anthrax used was a patented weaponised version found only in USAMRID labs. The attacks happened in 2001. One of the first to be blamed was Dr. Richard hatfill, who after numerous personal attacks by then Attorney General Ashcroft, challenged the AG on camera, in public, to charge him or leave him alone.
Hatfill was abandoned as a patsy.
Now 7 1/2 years later the next pasty 'commits suicide' using a manner that from those who have survived similar attempts is agonizing. And is conveniently dead so he cannot defend the slander being built up against him.
Just like another pasty named Lee Harvey Oswald, who was an early CIA plant in Russia, as well as a recognized Marine sharpshooter.
Just like 9/11, the anthrax 'attack' was an inside job meant to terrify you into surrendering your freedoms.