Monday, August 04, 2008

George Washington's Blog: Anomalies in Anthrax Suicide Story

My take on the anthrax attacks is that they were perpetrated by the same terrorists who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks which were planned to be coordinated with the Patriot Act (not to mention the invasion of Iraq). The two Senators who received the deadly anthrax letters, Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader, and Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had key roles in finally allowing the Patriot Act to pass in the form Cheney wanted.

If there were anything resembling accountability in this country, it would have been a scandal that there was no investigation for almost 7 years after the relevant strain of anthrax was linked to Ft Detrick, MD. .

Interesting that I found some relevant information regarding the Bruce Edwards Ivins suicide/anthrax attacks on The coverup is so clear that even NPR quoted at least two people who claimed that there was no way that Ivins was guilty of the attacks. Also, doesn't the news that Ivins was suicidal and homicidal seem a bit strange in a scientist in such a responsible position? How did the US get the information? What evidence is there that such stories are true?

Government Tries to Bury Anthrax Story
by George Washington's Blog

The government is trying to bury the 2001 anthrax attack scandal (the anthrax came from a U.S. military base) by claiming that one of the key suspects - Bruce E. Ivins - was a "lone nut" who committed suicide. Case closed.
There are just a couple of loose ends:
Ivins "was actually part of a team that helped the government investigate the anthrax attacks after Sept. 11"
"The attacks were not entirely unexpected", according to a journalist, who was urged soon after 9/11 to take cipro by a high-level government official (confirmation that government employees started taking Cipro before the Anthrax attacks here). As Michael Fury put it, "So even if Ivins was involved, how would "a high government official" know that a rogue bioweapons scientist was going to "go postal" with anthrax if that "high government official" was not himself involved?" (and see this comment by Atrios)
Why did the anthrax letters attempt to link 9/11 and the anthrax attack and pretend to be from radical Muslims and be anti-America and anti-Israel, if they really came from a disgruntled American?
Why did the U.S. government - including, apparently, the people responsible for sending the anthrax letters - falsely claim that the materials in the anthrax prove that it was manufactured in Iraq? Would a disgruntled "lone nut" be motivated to concoct a false justification for invading Iraq?

Read more:



Ronald said...

Here are the responses I received to my anthrax mailing. I've changed people's initials to protect the guilty and innocent alike. (If you want your real initial or name listed in future, please so indicate.)

A number of people have pointed to Glenn Greenwald's excellent blog on the subject. 8.3.08

Among much else, he lists almost a dozen of the most blatant anomalies connected with this case.

btw, can anyone confirm that no autopsy will be allowed?


M wrote:

He's about the 13th microbiologist to expire in the last few years

K wrote:

Thanks for this.

The second link didn't work, but I was able to get it by pasting

into my browser window.

Greenwald's article is also very interesting.

B wrote:

Ronald, read this USA article form yeas ago..

Surely his defense would have been the sloppy practices at the lab in an attempt to show contamination of evidence brought against him to show he was the guy...

This would put to rest the spread of any other of these Ft Detrick labs to anywhere in the USA...

But more importantly he was not alone..

and that would have come out in a deal to turn state's evidence..

Now are we going to see what he evidence was that would indict him?

No Autopsy?

What a travesty...


L wrote:

Ron, I had all the same questions and assertions that you had on this. Will this ever end?
Be well, L.

Anonymous said...

One problem I find with your interpretation: If you wanted to blame the anthrax letters on Iraq, why not use the bacterial strain Saddam had used in the past and which (because he got it from the US in the first place) would be available to the US microbiologists? But no, they didn't.
And in the same vein: the original 2001 reports linking the anthrax to Iraq seem to have been based on govt sources claiming traces of bentonite in the letters. (supposedly, only Iraq biowarfare sources contain the stuff). If you were planning to orchestrate a panic based on the presence of bentonite in the anthrax letters and you were sending the letters, wouldn't you at least put some bentonite in the letters? Bentonite is not some exotic substance.