Anthrax Attacks!
The lead suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks has now apparently killed himself.
The sad sack of shit out of all of this is, savvy readers of the news (and Antiwar.com in particular) knew way back in 2001 that the “attacks” were inside jobs by disgruntled U.S. bioweapons scientist(s).
The problematic thing, at the time, was that if the F.B.I. were allowed to publicly pursue an employee of the U.S. “government” as a suspect, it would be further discrediting as to the competence of that U.S.”government” - which was already facing (at the least) a colossal fuck-up in its “duty to protect the lives of U.S. citizens” on September 11!
The “anthrax attacks” presented an opportunity, however; if they could be actively claimed to be - or at least inferred to be - the work of “Islamic terrorists,” then the “attacks” could be used to further stimulate fear (and compliance) in the population. After all, a nation under foreign attack is all too ready to abdicate its civil rights … and such was the flavor and characterization of those “anthrax attacks” back in the day when they were happening.
The solution - wait seven goddamn years to finally pursue the parties responsible. After all, the Sheeple have short memories, and the restrictions on civil rights (and other onerous legislation) have already been enacted.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I seem to recall the FBI and media pretty quickly realized this was an “inside job” and reported it as such, but the FBI screwed up by going after the wrong guy. Amazinging he sued the AG and just won a settlement of close to $3 million.
The two things that amazed me about this case is 1) a small circle of bio-war scientists were involved in the investigation trying to out one of their own and 2) the apparent culprit was a homicidal sociopath fooled everyone he worked with except his therapist.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Good selection of links from Justin pointing out the use of “anthrax attacks” to fuel the fire for war.
Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News
Journalists, their lying sources, and the anthrax investigation
Newsmax: Iraq behind Anthrax Attacks
Richard Cohen: our forgotten panic with the quote:
At the time, Stevens’s death and those that followed appeared somehow linked to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. That seemed to make sense because the first letters containing anthrax spores were mailed around that time and, maybe more to the point, the authorities at first said so. “There is a suspicion that this is connected to international terrorists,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt echoed him: “I don’t think there’s a way to prove that, but I think we all suspect that.” Iraq was among the suspects. It was thought to have a storehouse of biological weapons.
That’s Ari FUCKING Fleischer, White House spokesman, along with DICK Gephardt, using the resultant terror as incentive for war.
Here’s Think Progress quoting Insane McCain, on Letterman in 2001, saying the anthrax may have come from Iraq. They have a YouTube of it.
The letters themselves were designed to incite fear of Islamic attack. Look at them. The warmongers had incentive to capitalize on that … and they did.
I join Justin in doubting that any one person could have pulled off those attacks without assistance. There are most likely other culprits about.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I’m confused by your response and conflicting assersions in the links you provided. Justin (and others) suggest the FBI dogged the wrong man to suicide, but doesn’t offer an alternate explanation: did they get the wrong scientist? Was this an administration conspiracy? Islamic terrorists???
Reference this story in the Washington post published on October 28, 2002: FBI’s Theory On Anthrax Is Doubted - Attacks Not Likely Work Of 1 Person, Experts Say. According to the story, the FBI was onto the domestic, “lone individual” theory as early as November 2001, a year and a half before the Iraq War began.
“A profile of the attacker issued by the FBI last November described an angry, “lone individual” with “some” science background who could weaponize the anthrax spores in a basement laboratory for as little as $2,500. The FBI acknowledged that the sender may not have been a native English speaker but emphasized that there was no “direct or clear” link between the attacks and foreign terrorism.”
If the plan was to use “anthrax attacks to fuel the fire for war”, the FBI certainly didn’t get the memo. From the contemporaneous articles I’ve read, the idea of a foriegn sponsored terrorism was primarily driven by Spertzel and the U.S. bio-weapons community. Leahy himself said the agency “has not foreclosed the possibility of a foreign source of this attack.” The FBI was savagely criticized at the time for focusing their investigation on a domestic suspect.
Also, the idea that the news media got something wrong shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, especially under the circumstances (a week after the 9/11 attacks anthrax laced letters are sent to high level politicians with notes reading “death to america, death to Israel, allah is great”, etc.). Let’s face it, the first time most Americans ever heard the word “anthrax” was during the first gulf war and speculation of Iraqi involvement was bound to occur. Should the media have ignored this coincidence?
During the time these letters were sent, I distinctly remember thinking they were NOT being sent by al qaida OR the Iraqis. For one, the targets were just too bizarre (Brokaw? Leahy? Daschle?). Why these guys? Why wouldn’t Iraq or Al Qaida target the JCOS? Greenspan? Rumsfeld? Guiliani? Woolsey? Second, the contents of the letters sounded extremely amateurish. Al Qaida (or any other terrorist organization) would have sent a tome, not a short taunt, carefully printed by someone who obviously didn’t want to get caught.
So if Ivins was the wrong guy, and if the Iraqis didn’t do it (I don’t think they did), who sent these letters?The inference in some of the links you provided seem to suggest a Bush engineered conspiracy. Are they saying in the few short days following the 9/11 attacks Bush (pick you favorite culprit: CIA, Pentagon, Richard Perle) planned and executed this plot in order to pin the blame on Saddam? This administration couldn’t plan a koolaid stand that quickly.
As for Ivins, the sworn testimony by his “therapist” sounds quite damning (unless she’s a pathological liar), but obviously I would like to hear more evidence. Keep in mind the folks who are most vocally defending Ivins are the same people who kept pointing the finger at Iraq.
I believe the reason this investigation took so long is because after the FBI got burned on the Hatfill misadventure, they were extremely careful in getting their ducks in a row in regards to Ivins. Six million dollars? When is the last time you heard of a civilian getting a settlement like that against the federal government?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Anyone paying attention has known since 2001that the attacks were an inside job. That doesn’t necessarily mean it was an administration-sponsored job, just that it was done by U.S. employees of the weapons industry.
The media and administration buzz at the time was that the attacks were sponsored by al-Qaeda. I don’t think the administration buzz was a “mistake,” I think it was intentional. It’s in their character to play events in such a way as to push their agendas. I don’t think the media playing that up was a “mistake,” I think it was intentional. The political media in the U.S. exist mostly to transcribe White House press reports, with a few exceptions - exceptions which become fewer still when weighted by number of consumers, as opposed to a simple count of vendors.
It’s enough to know that the administration would capitalize on any terror event, in order to further their agenda. No need to suppose that they manufactured the event.
It took 7 years for a “lead suspect” to be identified. That is ironic on several levels, not the least of which is that basically nobody is paying attention after 7 years - Joe Schmuckatelli is busy buying 16-ouncers and bitching about the price of gasoline now, and couldn’t spell anthrax if you spotted them the “nthrax” part of the word.
Hmm, November 2001, we were already bombing Afghanistan, so why not float more correct theories. Damage is already done. October 2002 … by that time we were long at war, and Joe Schmuckatelli had already forgotten about anthrax. Definitely no point in playing it up anymore. We had moved on to nukes and chemical warheads in Iraq by then.
I don’t see a need for a defined alternate explanation if sufficient doubt is cast on the official explanation; simply detailing the need for an alternate is enough to start with. I don’t believe those jobs could be pulled off by a lone actor. Sending bombs through the mail, that’s different - much less difficult than sending weaponized biological agents.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I don’t need a defined alternate explanation, but aren’t you curious?
I just read the affidavit on SmokingGun and if this guy didn’t do it, he’s certainly one degree of separation from all the critical elements in this case:
- the P.O. Box in Frederick Maryland
- His penchants for what he described as “mindless drives”, as well as several to the Frederick P.O.Box
- Ivins told people he rolling back of his odometer to hide his drives from his wife
- The close proximity of the blue collection box in Princeton NJ to the KKG sorority office
- The large flask of purified anthrax his possesion at the time of the mailings
-The unexplained long nights at work up to and during the time of the mailings
- His emails in the months leading up to the letters that described his mental heath problems including his”incredible paranoid, delusional thoughts”
I still believe Oswald was the lone gunman though.