press conference now..theyre pinning it all on Ivans! - sooooo..initially it was meant to be the mythical "Al Quada"..so how was he involved with them? or is that to be forgotten about?
so how was he involved with them? or is that to be forgotten about?
Of course!! Go back to sleep you Goyim cattle. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Colonel Anderson Refutes False Allegations Against Dr. Ivins
George Washington’s Blog, Wednesday, Aug 6, 2008
Colonel Arthur Anderson is the chief of human use and ethics at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), the bioweapons facility where Dr. Ivins worked and where the anthrax strains were apparently obtained by the anthrax killer.
In that position, Colonel Anderson’s responsibilities include the following jobs:
“Conduct inquiries and investigations upon receipt of allegations of scientific misconduct or improper researcher behavior.
***
Prepare timely and intensive fact-finding reviews of minimal risk protocols that qualify for expedited review; … Advise senior officials in writing of the approvability of protocols, and addenda; … Conduct substantive continuing review of active protocols; … Investigate issues arising during conduct of studies”
Colonel Anderson is also a highly-respected scientist in his own right (a pathologist).
Anderson disputes two of the government allegations against Dr. Ivins.
First, he disputes the allegation that Ivins told no one that he had found anthrax in his lab for many months. Specifically, as reported in today’s Wall Street Journal:
“Col. Anderson says Dr. Ivins told him about the lapse in safety shortly after it occurred, contradicting Army findings in 2002 that Dr. Ivins had told no one.”
Anderson’s role as the person in charge of “conduct[ing] inquiries and investigations upon receipt of allegations of scientific misconduct or improper researcher behavior” and of “investigat[ing] issues arising during conduct of studies” is therefore important. He was an appropriate person for Ivins to speak to about his anthrax tests (admittedly, protocol required Ivins to tell others as well; but the fact that Ivins told Anderson shows good faith and a lack of guilty conscience on Ivins’ part).
Second, Anderson says that social worker Jean Duley’s conduct was wholly inappropriate and lacked credibility. Anderson, as an ethics expert and someone who knew Ivins well, simply doesn’t buy Duley’s allegations.
Again, I don’t know whether Ivins is guilty or not. But the government’s allegations to date hold no water.
_________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Before killing himself last week, Army scientist Bruce Ivins told friends that government agents had stalked him and his family for months, offered his son $2.5 million to rat him out and tried to turn his hospitalized daughter against him with photographs of dead anthrax victims.
The pressure on Ivins was extreme, a high-risk strategy that has failed the FBI before. The government was determined to find the villain in the 2001 anthrax attacks; it was too many years without a solution to the case that shocked and terrified a post-9/11 nation.
The last thing the FBI needed was another embarrassment. Overreaching damaged the FBI’s reputation in the high-profile investigations: the Centennial Olympic Park bombing probe that falsely accused Richard Jewell; the theft of nuclear secrets and botched prosecution of scientist Wen Ho Lee; and, in this same anthrax probe, the smearing of an innocent man — Ivins’ colleague Steven Hatfill.
In the current case, Ivins complained privately that FBI agents had offered his son, Andy, $2.5 million, plus “the sports car of his choice” late last year if he would turn over evidence implicating his father in the anthrax attacks, according to a former U.S. scientist who described himself as a friend of Ivins.
Ivins also said the FBI confronted Ivins’ daughter, Amanda, with photographs of victims of the anthrax attacks and told her, “This is what your father did,” according to the scientist, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because their conversation was confidential.
The scientist said Ivins was angered by the FBI’s alleged actions, which he said included following Ivins’ family on shopping trips.
Washington attorney Barry Coburn, who represents Amanda Ivins, declined to comment on the investigation. An attorney for Andy Ivins also declined to comment.
The FBI declined to describe its investigative techniques of Ivins.
Detox and rehab for Ivins?
The Washington Post reports today accounts from a fellow scientist, and Ivin’s counselor alleging that Ivin’s had difficulty with alcohol and prescription drugs that led to two inpatient stays for detoxification, rehabilitation, and therapy sessions from the counselor who eventually sought a protection order from Ivins:
“Late last fall, Bruce E. Ivins was drinking a liter of vodka some nights, taking large doses of sleeping pills and anti-anxiety drugs, and typing out rambling e-mails into the early morning hours, according to a fellow scientist who helped him through this period.
It was around the time that FBI agents showed Ivins’s 24-year-old daughter pictures of the victims who had died in the 2001 anthrax attacks and told her, “Your father did this,” the scientist said. The agents also offered her twin brother the $2.5 million reward for solving the anthrax case — and the sports car of his choice.
Ivins “was e-mailing me late at night with gobbledygook, ranting and raving” about what he called the “persecution” of his family, said the scientist, a recovering alcohol and drug user who had been sober for more than a decade. The scientist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that he had been contacted by a co-worker of Ivins’s at the sprawling Army biodefense laboratory in Fort Detrick and that the co-worker said the veteran anthrax researcher “has really gone down the tubes.”
The scientist agreed to help Ivins, focusing on a 12-step recovery program. He was one of many people who intervened in Ivins’s life before he committed suicide last week as law officials were preparing to indict him in the anthrax attacks that killed five people.
Before he died July 29 of a Tylenol overdose, Ivins, 62, had two inpatient stays at Maryland hospitals for detoxification and rehabilitation and attended two sets of therapy sessions with a counselor who eventually sought court protection from him.
Ivins had just returned from a four-week stay at a psychiatric hospital in Western Maryland in late May when he wrote the fellow scientist in recovery a calm, six-sentence e-mail. “I hope,” it said, “that both of us avoid relapsing into our previous substance abuse.” Since his death, Ivins’s long-term mental health and the psychological effects of the investigation have become increasingly prominent questions.
The counselor he saw for group therapy and biweekly individual sessions, who would eventually tell a judge that he was a “sociopathic, homicidal killer,” had a troubled past. Jean C. Duley, who worked until recent days for Comprehensive Counseling Associates in Frederick, is licensed as an entry-level drug counselor and was, according to one of her mentors, allowed to work with clients only under supervision of a more-seasoned professional.
Shortly before she sought a “peace order” against Ivins, Duley had completed 90 days of home detention after a drunken-driving arrest in December, and she has acknowledged drug use in her past.
In a 1999 interview with The Washington Post, Duley described her background as a motorcycle gang member and a drug user. “Heroin. Cocaine. PCP,” said Duley, who then used the name Jean Wittman. “You name it, I did it.”
Ivins starting working with Duley after a stint in rehabilitation about six months ago. It was not the first time, though, that people sensed that he had an addiction problem. W. Russell Byrne, an infectious disease specialist who worked with Ivins in the bacteriology division at Fort Detrick until Byrne’s 2000 retirement from the Army, has kept up with his former colleagues. Byrne said he remembers offering Ivins a beer one night several years ago when Ivins made a rare appearance at a party at Bushwaller’s, an Irish pub in the heart of Frederick where their crowd of scientists sometimes gathered. “He declined,” Byrne recalled. “He said he had a family history of alcoholism.”
Gerry Andrews, who worked with Ivins at Fort Detrick for nine years and was the bacteriology division’s chief from 2000 to 2003, said that it was rare for Ivins to join the other researchers after work for beer and that Ivins drank so little he was kidded about being a teetotaler.
Andrews said that after he retired from the Army, he kept in touch with Ivins via e-mail, sharing jokes and pondering scientific questions. Then in fall 2007, Andrews said, “he kind of fell off the radar screen. I found out that there was some issues with his house being surveilled.”
According to the scientist, who said he spent about 80 hours with Ivins to help him recover from his addiction, the FBI agents pressured Ivins’s children, and they were pressuring Ivins in public places. One day in March, when Ivins was at a Frederick mall with his wife and son, the agents confronted the researcher and said, “You killed a bunch of people.” Then they turned to his wife and said, “Do you know he killed people?” according to the scientist.”
Case ’solved’ but will ‘remain open’
The case of the anthrax-laced letters that killed five people in 2001 and alarmed a nation already traumatized by the Sept. 11 terror attacks has been solved — but will remain open for now to wrap up legal and investigative loose ends, according U.S. officials.
The government were to begin briefing victims and their survivors at FBI headquarters Wednesday — eight days after the top suspect, Army biowarfare scientist Bruce Ivins, killed himself as prosecutors prepared to charge him with murder.
Ivins’ lawyer maintains the brilliant but troubled scientist would have been proven innocent had he lived. And some of Ivins’ friends and former co-workers at the Fort Detrick biological warfare lab in Frederick, Md., say they doubt he could or would have unleashed the deadly toxin.
But after nearly seven years — much of which was spent pointing the finger at the wrong suspect — the FBI is ready to end the “Amerithrax” investigation by outlining its evidence against Ivins, according to two U.S. officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.
The Justice Department “has a legal and moral obligation to make official statements first to the victims and their families, then the public,” Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Tuesday. “And that’s the order in which we’re going to do it.”
Officially, the case will stay open for an undetermined but short period of time. That will allow the government to complete several legal and investigatory matters that need to be wrapped up before it can be closed, the officials said.
Families of victims were to get the first glimpse inside the case at the morning FBI briefing. The Justice Department, meanwhile, was expected to ask a federal judge to unseal documents revealing how the FBI closed in on Ivins.
That evidence should answer many questions in the bizarre investigation. Still, skeptics may never be satisfied if the documents fail to show conclusively that Ivins was solely responsible for mailing the anthrax letters that killed five and sickened 17 in the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
The case may turn on a couple of key points, including:
_An advanced DNA analysis that matched the anthrax used in the attacks to a specific batch controlled by Ivins. It is unclear, however, how the FBI eliminated as suspects others in the lab who had access to it.
_Ivins’ purported motive of sending the anthrax in a twisted effort to test a cure for it, according to authorities. Ivins complained of the limitations of animal testing and shared in a patent for an anthrax vaccine. No evidence has been revealed so far to bolster that theory.
_Why Ivins would have mailed the deadly letters from Princeton, N.J., a seven-hour round trip from his home. In perhaps the strangest explanation to emerge in the case so far, authorities said Ivins had been obsessed with the sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma for more than 30 years. The letters were sent from a mailbox down the street from the sorority’s offices at Princeton University.
Investigators can’t place Ivins in Princeton but say the evidence will show he had disturbing attitudes toward women. Other haunting details about Ivins’ mental health have emerged, and his therapist described him as having a history of homicidal and sociopathic thoughts.
_________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Zionism; A Pernicious Virus and World Problem.
Wednesday, August 6
Dr. Ivins is dead. I guess that’s all we really know. Although it is widely reported that Dr. Philip Zack, a more credible source for the stolen anthrax, is a Zionist Jew, we now see reports that he is a Catholic (see the bottom of the article for the writer’s strange arguments for why Philip Zack is a Catholic). Apparently the fact that he is a member of a particular Catholic church and got married in a Methodist church is all the proof one needs. I think you will find this portion of the article as amusing as did I. You will note the headline that accompanies the article.
I’ve been reading that there are kiosks in malls around the U.S. you can get a lot of information on this by using a search engine. They are selling everything from bad art to skin lotions. The Jewish Journal has quite an article on them. When you look at the membership of PNAC and any list of Neo-cons and when you look at who heads up a number of the main departments at Homeland Security you find mostly Zionist Jews. When you look at who pushed for the Iraq War and who is pushing for an attack on Iran you come up with a preponderance of Zionist Jews. Five Israelis were found celebrating the assault on the WTC. How did they know?
It’s well beyond strange at this point. How is it that Zionist American and Israeli Jews are connected to so many things involving murders, single and plural? How is it that the same Israeli security firm was in charge of all 9/11 airports as well as the London Tube and the Madrid train station at the time of the attacks? What’s the story with Odigo and Promis software? Why does it all track back to Israel? Understand that I could add much, much more; from Larry Silverstein to the curious locations of Olmert and Netanyahu on certain significant dates. Two things seem apparent, thinking or talking about these things is anti-Semitic and whatever happened was mere coincidence and Israel should probably get more money and guns for being associated with unbearable coincidences.
When you look at who controls the world media and much of the entertainment industry; when you look at who is behind the banks that are euphemistically called the ‘Federal’ Reserve; when you look at the identity of the Russian oligarchs and their London operations and when you look at the endless list of ancillary connections across the globe it becomes apparent you should look under your bed too because there is likely a Zionist there as well.
If you are a person who weighs evidence and uses reason and logic. If you are a person who believes that, quite often, where there is smoke there is fire. If you are a person who believes that hundreds of coincidences remove your conclusions from the area of coincidence, then it becomes crystal clear that the tag of anti-Semitism was created to counter one coming to conclusions based on informed research when that research continuously turns up the same group of people in relation to global criminal operations.
Now we have Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointing out that two thirds of the Cheka members who murdered tens of millions of Russians were… yeah, you guessed it. Then, maybe you notice the wording of the article and the tippy toeing around that is de rigueur for any discussion on the matter. It turns out that the number of people murdered makes the Holocaust Industry victims ...bigger killers than victims. You can’t talk about these things, even though I am. Even if you are Solzhenitsyn, they are going to say about you what is said about him in the article just mentioned. It’s clear beyond clear what is happening. Somehow, some collection of... some tiny percent of the world’s population is ...and has been... wreaking havoc around the globe for a long time.
Nothing that I have said here can be refuted or contested. The meaning of these things can be obfuscated and argued about but the things themselves are real. What is the world going to do about this? I don’t know the answer to that.
Then you have things like this. It seems that a person is left in a precarious situation when engaged in the study of this subject. They can go where the truth leads them and reap ignominy and censure. They can be imprisoned for saying things that the evidence affirms. They can avoid the truth of the affair and kiss the hands of their oppressors. They can run from the room any time the affair is mentioned. They can continue to graze like the beasts of the field upon ever diminishing forage... or they could just kill themselves by shooting themselves in the back of the head five or six times.
It isn’t just the things that I have mentioned here. It is the enormous amount of evidence that could not be contained in a single book, much less a brief essay like this. I guess the thing is to find some place that they don’t want and try to live under the radar while they enslave and lay waste to the world. Just about everyone slides away from the subject. Just about everyone zips their mouth. Just about everyone has lied to themselves about what is real and what is not in order to survive beneath the hobnailed boot of history’s slavemasters; speaking of which I guess I don’t have to mention who a large percentage of the owners of the slave ships turn out to be according to the records of the times.
So it appears that those who have told the truth are libeled and slandered and also correct in what they say. It turns out that Louis Farrakhan may be correct in what he says. It turns out that a large portion of those accused of being anti-Semitic were really just guilty of telling the truth; not that anyone was listening. It seems that their greatest crime was against themselves and their families for not having had the good sense to keep their mouths shut. Bertrand Russell and the rest of them should have just closed their eyes and worked to blame others for the crimes of those for whom it is a crime to speak about but... some of us are human beings and we care for more than just our appetites.
Now the Palestinians are being systematically abused and tortured, made homeless, thrown from the roofs of buildings while celebrating a wedding at their home, shot, stabbed, beaten and tormented while the world turns its head. It sickens me. You, the willfully blind, sicken me more. Your cowardice sickens me. Your complicity with these ruthless killers sickens me. But I am healed by knowing the truth. The truth is not a bad companion on the road.
What I have said here is so. I wish it were not so. I wish it were not so that a certain percentage of the world’s smallest population was not the world's and the truth's most aggressive enemy. I wish there were some way to end this but that is the nature of the world. Those whose love of money and power exceeds any human constraints on behavior... are those who possess the greatest amount of money and power because they desire it more than anyone else and are not hobbled, like you, by the possession of a conscience.
While systematically raping the world and its people they paint themselves as humanities benefactors. While enslaving the world they paint themselves as its liberators. While lying, as a beloved avocation, they paint themselves as defenders of the truth. While pretending to do one thing they accomplish the other. What they say and do have no connection to one another except for contrast. What they say they are... ...is the opposite of what they really are.
I do not know what will come as the movie plays out before us. I know that evil destroys itself and the sooner the better. My thoughts are with you who know the truth of what I have said. For the rest of you, this is a dream that just came and went and your participation and recollection of your life will scatter in the wind the way leaves are tossed on a windy street, turning in time, back to the common earth from which they came.
In a few days I will be on the road and unable to post your comments for a little while, just send them in and they will go up. I may not write again for some time. I’m not sure that what I have to say makes much of a difference in any case. Thank you for your fine commentary and for the time we spent together. I don’t know what lies ahead. We will have to wait and see... it all works out in the end... of that I am convinced.
_________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Anthrax mystery: the FBI/media narrative is laughable – and sinister
by Justin Raimondo
It sounds like a very bad made-for-television movie: a mad scientist – a violent sociopath, a "nerd with a dark side," who had already tried to kill several people, is obsessed with pornography, and is fixated on a particular college sorority – unleashes a strain of deadly anthrax through the U.S. mail, killing five, infecting 17 others, and terrorizing the country. His motive, aside from sheer antisocial vindictiveness: he holds the patent for an anthrax vaccine, and he also wants to direct the nation's attention to the supposedly overlooked and underfunded problem of bio-terrorism. That'll teach 'em!
It reads like some pretty execrable fiction, yet the FBI is peddling this farrago of shopworn clichés as the facts surrounding the alleged guilt of Bruce E. Ivins, whose suicide the other day ostensibly closes the 7-year-old anthrax terrorism case that has baffled investigators and shone a cruel light on the Bureau's methods and standards of conduct.
The real topper has got to be the "sorority obsession" supposedly nursed by Ivins – a mild-mannered family man universally liked by his co-workers and neighbors. This is the sort of B-movie script beloved by Hollywood, wherein the upstanding bourgeois father of two and devoted husband is really a psychopathic slime-ball just beneath the surface, seething with resentment and even hatred of women who rejected his advances in the past – a male version of Carrie, who rises up in his true garb as the virtual incarnation of misanthropy to wreak vengeance on the female sex, and the world.
This passes muster in Hollywood, of course, since it embodies all the social prejudices so beloved by that temple of cultural corruption, yet in the real world one looks at it askance and wonders: are these guys kidding? Because this scenario has very little if anything to do with the known facts. The only connection the anthrax letters have to the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority is the fact that the New Jersey letters were mailed from a post office box not far from where the Princeton chapter keeps a storage locker. No kidding: that is the connection, in toto. So even if Ivins did indeed have an unusual interest in this sorority – supposedly because one of its members once rejected him back when he was a student at the University of Cincinnati – what this storage locker has to do with anything, including his alleged motives, is known only to those geniuses over at the FBI.
Clearly, the whole purpose of bringing this sorority angle up is to smear a dead man as a pervert and cast him in the sinister light suitable for the villain in this crude media narrative. The pornography angle serves the same purpose: Ivins apparently rented a mail box under another name, which he used to receive photos of blindfolded women, presumably in suggestive poses.
No, not very pretty – but so what? How does this make him the anthrax murderer?
Another element of this grade-B thriller is the "scientific" faux-Sherlock Holmes aspect of Ivins' unmasking as the alleged killer. According to all those anonymous FBI and other government officials, who are leaking faster than they ever moved on this case, new scientific techniques that weren't available during the Steven Hatfill fiasco have definitively traced the particular strain of anthrax used in the attacks back to a single flask in Ivins' lab. We're given all sorts of scientific-sounding gobbledygook to make the "evidence" sound convincing, but the fact remains that at least 12 other people at Ft. Detrick, not to mention other labs around the country, had access to the contents of that flask. For all the "genome tracing" and scientific detective work conducted by the FBI over a period of years, the reality is that they can trace the anthrax to a particular lab – but not, as several experts have pointed out, to a particular person. That would require real detective work of the gumshoe variety, as opposed to farming it out to scientists, many of whom are (or were) on the FBI's suspect list. (Ivins himself was recruited to this task.)
Yet the FBI is not that concerned with the facts: what they're after is a good story, one that the media – and therefore, they think, the public – will swallow without thinking about it too much. Oh yeah, that obsessive nut with the fixation on blindfolded sorority babes – obviously the sort to go a on rampage, and, unfortunately, he just happened to have access to the most horrific toxins known to mankind, courtesy of the U.S. government. They aren't trying to convince a jury; after all, the guy is dead. The FBI and those in the administration who used the anthrax attacks to stoke up a war just want to convince the American public, a group they obviously hold in such low regard that they don't bother with such niceties as logic and real evidence. Just tell them a story, and make it a good one – oh, and be sure to spice it up with sex. That'll do the trick.
Except it won't. The deceased scientist's colleagues and friends are rising to his defense, and the truth about how the FBI persecuted Ivins – and effectively drove him to suicide, in my view quite deliberately – is now coming out. They gave Ivins the full Hatfill treatment: agents followed him everywhere, abusing him, giving him the finger, and intruding on his private space to an extent that seems almost inconceivable. Yet apparently it's all perfectly legal in this era of the PATRIOT Act, a brazen assault on the constitutional rights of all Americans made possible in large part by the anthrax attacks and the atmosphere of hysterical fear they engendered.
Now I want to venture into some territory that is wild, to be sure, but no wilder than the anthrax letters themselves. I want to emphasize that this is just pure speculation on my part, or, more accurately, an interesting angle that could have significance – yet I hope not.
A number of the recent articles on the anthrax attacks have remarked on how the various targets seem curiously unrelated: the phrase "little in common" is often employed. And yet – and yet…
To begin with, targets Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy aren't just any old U.S. senators. They're Democrats, and, what's more, they are – or, in Daschle's case, were – leaders of the congressional Democratic caucus. Daschle was leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, and Leahy was – and is – head of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, a post he used to his party's maximum advantage.
Both of these men, in addition, were major obstacles to the passage of the PATRIOT Act, with Daschle refusing to grant the administration the unlimited power it sought. Together with Leahy, Daschle led the opposition to the original version of the bill, which had no expiration date. The Democrats, particularly Daschle and Leahy, argued in favor of a two-year expiration date, but after their Senate offices were targeted by the anthrax killer, both thought better of it and compromised on a four-year extension.
Far from having "little in common," as the conventional media spinmeisters would have it, these two men shared their staunch opposition to the Bush administration's brazen attempt to trample the Constitution underfoot and seize power for themselves.
Yes, but what about the anthrax killers' media targets? NBC one could arguably describe as either centrist, or mildly liberal, but what about the New York Post and the National Enquirer, one a rightist daily owned by Rupert Murdoch and the other an iconic gossip sheet whose name is a synonym for journalism of the yellowest sort? These two targets seem to have nothing in common, aside from a certain tabloid flair.
Yet they do, indeed, share a certain focus, at least when it comes to one very particular subject, and I owe this insight to the anonymous "Allie," posting on the Newsgarden.org Web site. The Enquirer has published a lot of photos of celebrities caught-in-the-act, so to speak, and one of these was of Jenna Bush, falling-down drunk and rolling around on the floor with another female for the delectation of the attending fraternity boys. The New York Post was another source for this specialized genre. As "Allie" puts it: "If you go to their search page and do a search for Jenna what you come up with is a plethora of articles on the Boozing Bush Twins. More and worse than anything published in The National Enquirer."
"Allie" then goes on to list the Post's prolific output of bad-girl-Jenna pieces, with such lurid titles as "Busted Bush Babes Make Different Booze Pleas," "Double Shot: Bush Twins Both Nailed," "Jenna Comes 'Clean': Beer Bush Babe Faces Garbage Duty," and a little editorial comment to stick the knife in all the way: "Reign in These Bush Leaguers," by Linda Stasi.
As "Allie" shows, all of the intended targets of the anthrax attacks did indeed have one thing in common: in some manner or other, they had crossed the Bush family, either in a very personal way (the first victims at the Enquirer and the Post), or else politically, in the cases of Daschle and Leahy. As far as the latter two are concerned, it wasn't just their status as Democratic Party leaders, but their active opposition to the Bush agenda during the PATRIOT Act debate, that mattered.
As for Tom Brokaw, "Allie" points out that, prior to receiving the deadly anthrax-laden missive, and as the country was still reeling from the impact of 9/11, Brokaw had been approached by administration insiders not to run an interview with Bill Clinton, but he went ahead and did it anyway, thus incurring the Bushies' wrath.
Yes, there were many more victims of the anthrax attacks, with five killed and 17 injured. Leahy and Daschle were unharmed, as was Brokaw, but the Enquirer was hit hard, and – given "Allie's" thesis – right on target.
In any case, a certain pattern of the intended targets emerges. I can't paraphrase the passion behind Allie's analysis, so I'll let him speak for himself:
"Who had a motive? Who had a grudge against The Enquirer and the New York Post? Who had a grudge against Brokaw? Who wanted to frighten or manipulate Congress? First to get it to adjourn indefinitely, leaving Bush with the power of the purse. Second to get the PATRIOT Act passed in all its fascist glory, without even being read. Who?
"It's as plain as the nose on your face. Why is the major media pussyfooting around it? Are they still terrified?"
I have to say I don't see any real evidence for any of this, beyond the wildly circumstantial – and, in that respect, the basis of "Allie's" thesis is no different from the "evidence" marshaled by the FBI against Dr. Ivins. Except that, of the two narratives, the FBI's tale of a porn-obsessed sorority-house lurker and mad scientist is a lot less believable.
What is all too believable, however, is the abuse endured by Ivins and his family, as related by the New York Times:
"They had even intensively questioned his adopted children, Andrew and Amanda, now both 24, with the authorities telling his son that he might be able to collect the $2.5 million reward for solving the case and buy a sports car, and showing his daughter gruesome photographs of victims of the anthrax letters and telling her, 'Your father did this,' according to the account Dr. Ivins gave a close friend.
"As the investigation wore on, some colleagues thought the FBI's methods were increasingly coercive, as the agency tried to turn Army scientists against one another and reinterviewed family members.
"One former colleague, Dr. W. Russell Byrne, said the agents pressed Dr. Ivins' daughter repeatedly to acknowledge that her father was involved in the attacks.
'"It was not an interview,' Dr. Byrne said. 'It was a frank attempt at intimidation.'
"Dr. Byrne said he believed Dr. Ivins was singled out partly because of his personal weaknesses. 'They figured he was the weakest link,' Dr. Byrne said. 'If they had real evidence on him, why did they not just arrest him?'"
Well, they didn't arrest him because there wasn't enough evidence. So they drove him to suicide, as the only alternative to confessing to a crime he didn't commit. The kind of treatment Ivins had to endure at the hands of the FBI and other government agencies would have broken anyone, and, by all accounts, he was truly broken at the end, crying at his desk, suffering at least two breakdowns, and finally giving up the life that, in his view, had become hardly worth living. Why they wanted him dead, or in jail, is the core of the mystery at the center of this horrific episode in the annals of "law enforcement." It's hard to believe this would be done merely to show that the FBI is on the job, protecting the nation from terrorists and other evildoers: their monumental incompetence, which some have interpreted as having more sinister implications, had practically ruined their reputation. Yet why pick on Ivins? It had to be more than just the "weak link" thesis put forward by his friend Dr. Byrne.
As I wrote on Monday, the longevity of Ivins' career at Ft. Detrick – 36 years – gave him a bird's-eye view of that troubled facility's deepest and darkest secrets, including the series of events that took place in the 1990s, when all sorts of pathogens were apparently spirited out of the place and unauthorized experiments were carried out by freelancers employed by USAMRIID.
Did they drive Ivins to suicide because he knew too much? I don't rule out some degree of involvement by Ivins, perhaps amounting only to knowledge of whom the perpetrators might be. However, in my view, he's taking the fall for those who planned and executed the first biological attack on American soil. Surely a lone nut could not have carried out this technically difficult and logistically complicated scheme to terrorize an entire nation on the eve of such momentous events. That isn't "conspiracism" – it's common sense. With the exoneration of Steven Hatfill and the posthumous demonization of an apparently innocent man, the country is waking up to the importance of the previously nearly forgotten anthrax story – which, I might add, we've pursued in this space with some regularity year after year.
~ Justin Raimondo
_________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Zionism; A Pernicious Virus and World Problem.
Wednesday, August 6
Dr. Ivins is dead. I guess that’s all we really know. Although it is widely reported that Dr. Philip Zack, a more credible source for the stolen anthrax, is a Zionist Jew, we now see reports that he is a Catholic (see the bottom of the article for the writer’s strange arguments for why Philip Zack is a Catholic). Apparently the fact that he is a member of a particular Catholic church and got married in a Methodist church is all the proof one needs. I think you will find this portion of the article as amusing as did I. You will note the headline that accompanies the article.
I’ve been reading that there are kiosks in malls around the U.S. you can get a lot of information on this by using a search engine. They are selling everything from bad art to skin lotions. The Jewish Journal has quite an article on them. When you look at the membership of PNAC and any list of Neo-cons and when you look at who heads up a number of the main departments at Homeland Security you find mostly Zionist Jews. When you look at who pushed for the Iraq War and who is pushing for an attack on Iran you come up with a preponderance of Zionist Jews. Five Israelis were found celebrating the assault on the WTC. How did they know?
It’s well beyond strange at this point. How is it that Zionist American and Israeli Jews are connected to so many things involving murders, single and plural? How is it that the same Israeli security firm was in charge of all 9/11 airports as well as the London Tube and the Madrid train station at the time of the attacks? What’s the story with Odigo and Promis software? Why does it all track back to Israel? Understand that I could add much, much more; from Larry Silverstein to the curious locations of Olmert and Netanyahu on certain significant dates. Two things seem apparent, thinking or talking about these things is anti-Semitic and whatever happened was mere coincidence and Israel should probably get more money and guns for being associated with unbearable coincidences.
When you look at who controls the world media and much of the entertainment industry; when you look at who is behind the banks that are euphemistically called the ‘Federal’ Reserve; when you look at the identity of the Russian oligarchs and their London operations and when you look at the endless list of ancillary connections across the globe it becomes apparent you should look under your bed too because there is likely a Zionist there as well.
If you are a person who weighs evidence and uses reason and logic. If you are a person who believes that, quite often, where there is smoke there is fire. If you are a person who believes that hundreds of coincidences remove your conclusions from the area of coincidence, then it becomes crystal clear that the tag of anti-Semitism was created to counter one coming to conclusions based on informed research when that research continuously turns up the same group of people in relation to global criminal operations.
Now we have Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointing out that two thirds of the Cheka members who murdered tens of millions of Russians were… yeah, you guessed it. Then, maybe you notice the wording of the article and the tippy toeing around that is de rigueur for any discussion on the matter. It turns out that the number of people murdered makes the Holocaust Industry victims ...bigger killers than victims. You can’t talk about these things, even though I am. Even if you are Solzhenitsyn, they are going to say about you what is said about him in the article just mentioned. It’s clear beyond clear what is happening. Somehow, some collection of... some tiny percent of the world’s population is ...and has been... wreaking havoc around the globe for a long time.
Nothing that I have said here can be refuted or contested. The meaning of these things can be obfuscated and argued about but the things themselves are real. What is the world going to do about this? I don’t know the answer to that.
Then you have things like this. It seems that a person is left in a precarious situation when engaged in the study of this subject. They can go where the truth leads them and reap ignominy and censure. They can be imprisoned for saying things that the evidence affirms. They can avoid the truth of the affair and kiss the hands of their oppressors. They can run from the room any time the affair is mentioned. They can continue to graze like the beasts of the field upon ever diminishing forage... or they could just kill themselves by shooting themselves in the back of the head five or six times.
It isn’t just the things that I have mentioned here. It is the enormous amount of evidence that could not be contained in a single book, much less a brief essay like this. I guess the thing is to find some place that they don’t want and try to live under the radar while they enslave and lay waste to the world. Just about everyone slides away from the subject. Just about everyone zips their mouth. Just about everyone has lied to themselves about what is real and what is not in order to survive beneath the hobnailed boot of history’s slavemasters; speaking of which I guess I don’t have to mention who a large percentage of the owners of the slave ships turn out to be according to the records of the times.
So it appears that those who have told the truth are libeled and slandered and also correct in what they say. It turns out that Louis Farrakhan may be correct in what he says. It turns out that a large portion of those accused of being anti-Semitic were really just guilty of telling the truth; not that anyone was listening. It seems that their greatest crime was against themselves and their families for not having had the good sense to keep their mouths shut. Bertrand Russell and the rest of them should have just closed their eyes and worked to blame others for the crimes of those for whom it is a crime to speak about but... some of us are human beings and we care for more than just our appetites.
Now the Palestinians are being systematically abused and tortured, made homeless, thrown from the roofs of buildings while celebrating a wedding at their home, shot, stabbed, beaten and tormented while the world turns its head. It sickens me. You, the willfully blind, sicken me more. Your cowardice sickens me. Your complicity with these ruthless killers sickens me. But I am healed by knowing the truth. The truth is not a bad companion on the road.
What I have said here is so. I wish it were not so. I wish it were not so that a certain percentage of the world’s smallest population was not the world's and the truth's most aggressive enemy. I wish there were some way to end this but that is the nature of the world. Those whose love of money and power exceeds any human constraints on behavior... are those who possess the greatest amount of money and power because they desire it more than anyone else and are not hobbled, like you, by the possession of a conscience.
While systematically raping the world and its people they paint themselves as humanities benefactors. While enslaving the world they paint themselves as its liberators. While lying, as a beloved avocation, they paint themselves as defenders of the truth. While pretending to do one thing they accomplish the other. What they say and do have no connection to one another except for contrast. What they say they are... ...is the opposite of what they really are.
I do not know what will come as the movie plays out before us. I know that evil destroys itself and the sooner the better. My thoughts are with you who know the truth of what I have said. For the rest of you, this is a dream that just came and went and your participation and recollection of your life will scatter in the wind the way leaves are tossed on a windy street, turning in time, back to the common earth from which they came.
In a few days I will be on the road and unable to post your comments for a little while, just send them in and they will go up. I may not write again for some time. I’m not sure that what I have to say makes much of a difference in any case. Thank you for your fine commentary and for the time we spent together. I don’t know what lies ahead. We will have to wait and see... it all works out in the end... of that I am convinced.
(grimace) treading on dangerous ground there mate lol
Yes - the truth is very dangerous! _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
From the Jewish Telegraphic Agency... "Ivins believed Jews were God's Chosen"....
Quote:
In one letter he praises a rabbi for refusing to engage in dialogue with a controversial local Muslim cleric.
"By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for 'dialogue' with any gentile," Ivins wrote in 2006.
Earlier letters suggest that he saw President Bush's re-election as a victory for evangelicals.
"You can get on board or get left behind, because that Christian Nation Express is pulling out of the station!" he wrote after the election.
Ivins killed himself as the U.S. Justice Department prepared to arrest him. Ivins' beliefs are significant because the 2001 attacker in notes appeared to be a radical Islamist, writing "Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great."
The attacks, coming in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, helped galvanize support for the Bush administration's plan to invade Iraq.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject:
Whoever was responsible for the anthrax attacks was working, consciously or by being manipulated, for the Neo-Con Fascist War Criminals. 'Qui bonum?' That is the bottom line. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Only sheer brilliance or a crystal ball could foretell the next terrorist attack, right? Nope, says the inventor of a computer program that predicted anthrax might be sent through the mail six months before it happened. Cyc (as in encyclopedia), a project that is now part of the Pentagon's research on sniffing out terrorist plots, comes up with scenarios that could help focus screening efforts. It works by applying common sense to an extensive knowledge of terrorism. "It's not like beating Kasparov at chess," says creator Doug Lenat, head of the Austin-based firm Cycorp. He compares it to "a person with average intelligence but a vast amount of time and patience."
Cyc's roots go back to 1983, when Lenat concluded that efforts to create computer intelligence had hit a wall. "Robots lacked the common sense of humans," he says. So he began feeding Cyc concepts like the difference between turkey the meat or bird and Turkey, the country. The database now holds almost 2 million such simple truths.
Under a $9.8 million grant from the Defense Department's Information Awareness Office, Cyc has acquired a trove of knowledge about past terrorist activities, tactics, and weapons. But it is still a work in progress. Once, developing a scenario for a terrorist attack on Hoover Dam, it hypothesized a school of 1,000 al Qaeda- trained dolphins bearing explosives. Another time, Cyc, which can learn by asking questions, inquired: "Am I human?" It's reassuring to know it still needs our help. -Dana Hawkins
This story appears in the April 7, 2003 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.
The Cycorp wikipedia entry links to this story by Lenat;
"In the late 1970s I built a computer program (Eurisko) that discovered things on its own in many fields."
...
"We're now in a position to specify the steps required to bring a HAL-like being into existence.
1. Prime the pump with the millions of everyday terms, concepts, facts, and rules of thumb that comprise human consensus reality -- that is, common sense.
2. On top of this base, construct the ability to communicate in a natural language, such as English. Let the HAL-to-be use that ability to vastly enlarge its knowledge base.
3. Eventually, as it reaches the frontier of human knowledge in some area, there will be no one left to talk to about it, so it will need to perform experiments to make further headway in that area."
...
"In the fall of 1984, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman convinced me that if I was serious about taking that first step, I needed to leave academia and come to his newly formed MCC (Microelectronics and Computer Consortium) in Austin, Texas, and assemble a team to do it. The idea was that over the next decade dozens of individuals would create a program, CYC, with common sense. We would "prime the knowledge pump" by handcrafting and spoon-feeding CYC with a couple of million important facts and rules of thumb. The goal was to give CYC enough knowledge by the late 1990s to enable it to learn more by means of natural language conversations and reading (step 2). Soon thereafter, say by 2001, we planned to have it learning on its own, by automated-discovery methods guided by models or minitheories of the real world (step 3).
To a large extent, that's just what we did. At the end of 1994, the CYC program was mature enough to spin off from MCC as a new company -- Cycorp -- to commercialize the technology and begin its widespread deployment."
Admiral Inman is linked to SAIC (among other things, SAIC is neck-deep in connections to digital voting machines). This article from 2003 is pretty informative;
Quote:
""Currently on SAIC's board is ex-CIA director Bobby Ray Inman, director of the National Security Agency, deputy director of the CIA, and vice director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. According to the OC (*Orange County) Weekly, "Inman worked at the highest levels of American intelligence during an era (President Ronald Reagan) when it displayed a stunning lack of it. Inman's achievements include: failing to predict the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union; prolonging violent, useless civil wars in Central America; and giving arms to terrorists in exchange for hostages (Iran Contra)."
"During the Bush administration, Inman, Perry and Deutch - while directors of Science Applications (SAIC), were also members of the National Foreign Intelligence Board (NFIB), an advisory group reporting to the President and the director of Central Intelligence, which deals with production, review and coordination of foreign intelligence," reports the Crypt. Both Inman and Deutch were former Directors of the CIA. William J. Perry was also a former Secretary of Defense during the Clinton Administration.
SAIC proudly lists DARPA in its annual report as one of its prime clients. DARPA is the controversial Department of Defense (DOD) subsidiary, which until recently employed Admiral John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame. Poindexter was forced to resign when it was revealed that DARPA was prepared to trade "futures" in terrorist attacks. DARPA has also developed a program to spy on American citizens, which has civil libertarians in an uproar."
SAIC in turn, is linked to Steven Hatfill and Jerome Hauer. Mr. Hauer is currently a director at Emergent Solutions, parent co. of BioPort, which in turn is linked to Bruce Ivins.
So, an artificial intelligence program with an uncanny knack for putting the pieces together "predicts" the anthrax mailings, and 6 months later they happen?
And the program, under "widespread deployment" is funded heavily by DARPA, and is hard-wired into the U.S. intelligence community.
Including a maximum of 2 degrees of separation from all of the (known) players in the anthrax tango.
How detailed was Cy's (Cycorp) "prediction" about the mailings? Did it include variables like mailing the anthrax from different states to muddy the trail... stuff like that? How about a variable on creating false evidence trails to keep people guessing?
I'm not sure that Cy is any more humane than HAL ever was.
I call out to internet researchers everywhere for more info on Cycorp.
"...Now, if a system can be used to answer questions like "What are the ways Anthrax could be delivered to targets in a terrorist attack?", and the system contains information about how things can be delivered based on their size and other properties, it can provide a list of answers to the question which, with enough base knowledge, would include mailing the anthrax. Such a system would be very useful to a terrorist, as it would provide new ideas on how to cheaply carry out attacks. If the system knew who has anthrax, it could also tell you where to obtain it, and so on. This all leads me to the conclusion: knowledge based systems designed to defend against terrorist attacks could be used just as easily to suggest methods of terrorist attacks. A government would have quite the "false flag attack" generating system in their pocket if they had such a system. As you can see in the article, our government does have such a system. Without my knowledge of this implication, I worked on that system, thinking it was helping to defend us against such attacks..."
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject: Fort Dettrick Scientist: Ivins innocent!
Kevin Barratt's interview with Fort Dettrick scientist; the guy says everyone at Fort Dettrick knows he's innocent, but have been threatened with the sack if they speak to the media:
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/ _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Bruce Ivins may have targeted Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy with anthrax-laced letters in 2001 because he saw them as bad Catholics owing to their votes in favor of abortion rights, officials close to the investigation say.
There was some speculation that Ivins had targeted Daschle and Leahy because he saw them as holding up funding that would have helped pay for his research into an anthrax vaccine. Now, officials close to the investigation say another possible motive could have been that Ivins saw the senators as bad Catholics because of their votes in favor of abortion rights.
Ivins and his wife were both practicing Catholics, and their children had attended and graduated from a Catholic high school in Frederick, Md. His wife, Diane Ivins, according to an e-mail Ivins wrote in 2002, was president of the Frederick County Right to Life, and the couple had connections to many other anti-abortion groups. In a July 10, 2002, e-mail cited in the affidavit, Ivins wrote: "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-life, but I want my position to be one consistent with a Christian."
In 2001, the Catholic anti-abortion movement was openly critical of Catholic members of Congress who voted in support of abortion rights for women. Two of the more prominent lawmakers who fell into this category were Daschle and Leahy. The Ivins affidavit mentions an article in the September/October 2001 issue of the Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati newsletter that singled out Daschle, Leahy and Sens. Edward Kennedy and Joseph Biden for criticism because of their abortion rights votes.
The article was part of a longer dispatch by the leader of the Netherlands-based International Right to Life, Dr. John Wilke. The small article, titled "Pro-Abortion Catholic Senators?", ended with: "We should stop labeling these men Catholic, for anyone who directly aids abets or gets an abortion, by Catholic teaching, excommunicates themselves."
The affidavit stops short of saying that Ivins read the article. But officials close to the case say the newsletter was found in a search of his home. Given his longstanding connection to Cincinnati (he attended college there), his wife's role in the Frederick Right to Life Chapter, and his own beliefs about abortion, it is not implausible to have found the article in Ivins' home. Officials close to the case said that they believe Ivins' right-to-life fervor was at least part of the reason he would target Daschle and Leahy.
Officials also said Ivins did a great deal of mailing under pseudonyms and from various cities other than his hometown of Frederick. Much of that letter traffic involved anti-abortion or Right to Life activities, they said.
Ivins' lawyer, Paul Kemp, told NPR that attributing a new motive to Ivins was hogwash. He says the FBI is just floating a new theory and can't prove that Ivins was so passionate about his anti-abortion beliefs.
"They questioned him about that," Kemp told NPR. "And he denied that had ever been something that he was ardently involved with."
I imagine that equating pro-life with bioterrorism would upset and awfully large number of people. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
FINDING THE “CULPRIT” of the Anthrax attacks has been the special business of a few pseudo “bio sleuths” of the Jewish community. But for those of us who love the truth a good place to start is the US Bio Weapons Lab at Fort Detrick MD where the Ames strain of Anthrax can be traced to.
The man most likely responsible for procuring Anthrax for “terror attacks” is the Jew, Dr Philip Zack. Up until December of 1991, Dr Phillip Zack worked at the US Bio Weapons Lab in Fort Detrick MD where Anthrax is stored.
Although Zack left Fort Detrick in 1991 because of accusations of harrasing a Muslim colleague by the name of Dr Ayaad Assaad, he returned frequently to “visit friends.” After reports of missing biological specimens—including anthrax—surveillance camera tapes recorded Dr Phillip Zack entering the lab late on the night of January 23 1992 according to The Hartford Courant Report.
Zack was let in that night by Marian Rippy, a lab pathologist and close friend of Zack’s. Rippy now says she has no memory of the evening though she did “remember” that Zack occasionally visited and that other friends let him in.
The Zionist controlled Press ignored Dr Phillip Zack’s documented unauthorized visits. Did Gentile journalists fear being labeled as “Anti Semites” for casting suspicions on a Jewish scientist? No, that’s not it at all. It’s because Zionist Jews, (they own all of American media), protect their own, that’s why.
AN INNOCENT SUSPECT DIES - THE GUILTY REMAINS FREE
ON JULY 29 2008, Dr Bruce E Ivins, a highly respected microbiologist at Fort Detrick, and father of two, died of an alleged suicide. Many questions surround both Dr Bruce E Ivins, (who was awarded the Defense Department’s highest civilian award in 2003), and the entire investigation as well. No suicide note was found and Ivin’s co-workers have nothing but good things to say about him. And - the investigation documents are now conveniently sealed.
Ivin’s attorney, Paul Kemp, continues to insist on Ivin’s innocence:
— “For six years, Dr Ivins fully cooperated with the FBI in every way that was asked of him. The relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo takes its toll in different ways on different people as has been seen in this investigation. We assert Ivin’s innocence and would have established that at trial.” — Here.
Soon after the 9/11 attack, an anonymous letter was sent to Quantico Marine Base accusing Dr Ayaad Assaad, Zack’s victim in 1991, of plotting terrorism. This letter was received before the Anthrax letters were even reported.
The timing of the letter makes its author a serious suspect in the Anthrax attacks. This is because the sender displayed considerable knowledge of Dr Assaad, his work, his personal life, and a remarkable premonition of the upcoming Anthrax attacks. Who would have possessed this knowledge? Even an amateur detective would say, “Dr Phillip Zack.”
After interviewing Assaad on October 2 2001, the FBI, ignoring Assaad’s plea, strangely decided the letter was just a hoax. While the Zionist controlled Press did note that an anonymous letter had accused Dr Assaad of bioterrorism, none followed up on it after Assaad’s innocence was established.
And - Dr Phillip Zack’s name never surfaced again as one of the Anthrax suspects. Why?
Because the Zionist Jews who run the media protect their own, that’s why…
There is little doubt that Ivins was a troubled man. Though whether he became troubled enough to kill himself before or after the relentless hounding of investigators (who showed photos of anthrax victims to his daughter and declared "your father did this" and fruitlessly offered $2.5m to his son as enticement to turn on his own father) is yet another open question.
Then there's the therapist who treated Ivins for the last six months or so, until being encouraged by the FBI to go to a judge to seek a restraining order against him. But the social worker, Jean Duley, whose embarrassing hand-scrawled statement to the judge, declaring Ivins "homicidal" and "sociopathic" and bent on revenge killings as long as ago as 2000 – and who spelled therapist as "theripist" – has her own problems, including a rap sheet for drunk driving, possession of narcotics paraphernalia, and apparently no job or money for an attorney since she no longer works at the Maryland facility where she supposedly treated Ivins.
Joined: 16 Aug 2008 Posts: 4 Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: Barbara Honegger discusses Bruce Ivins Anthrax investigation
August 17, 2008
Kevin Barrett talks with Barbara Honegger about the government’s claim that Bruce Ivins, a bio-warfare scientist at the Army’s Ft. Detrick bio-laboratory, is behind the anthrax attacks, the Bush Administration has now officially acknowledged the attacks were not perpetrated by "Al Qaeda" – or by Iraq — but were their own false flag inside job.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Barbara Honegger discusses Bruce Ivins Anthrax investiga
Unfortunately cutting out all the way through and as such un-listen-to-able.
Please re-upload as you maay have been hacked by the gangsters.
radiodujour wrote:
August 17, 2008 Kevin Barrett talks with Barbara Honegger about the government’s claim that Bruce Ivins, a bio-warfare scientist at the Army’s Ft. Detrick bio-laboratory, is behind the anthrax attacks, the Bush Administration has now officially acknowledged the attacks were not perpetrated by "Al Qaeda" – or by Iraq — but were their own false flag inside job.
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/honegger_barbara/
And let's just spend a brief moment marveling at how mindless and uncritical the establishment media is in how they report on these matters. It was The Post's Carrie Johnson and Joby Warrick who first reported the FBI's leak on August 8 that Ivins had likely traveled to New Jersey after taking administrative leave in the morning, and they reported it without an iota of critical thought, and certainly didn't point out that the FBI's own timeline was impossible on its own terms. More amazingly, it was one of those same Post reporters -- Carrie Johnson -- who on Thursday printed the FBI's brand new and mutually exclusive theory -- that Ivins traveled to New Jersey at night, after work -- without even bothering to mention the most important fact: that it was a brand new theory that contradicted the one she mindlessly passed on from the FBI the week before.
To the contrary, in touting the FBI's brand new theory, Johnson wrote that "government sources offered more detail about Ivins's movements on a critical day in the case" -- as though the FBI's abandonment of its prior claim in favor of a new one comprised "more detail." The FBI didn't offer "more detail"; it offered completely "new detail" because the last "detail" they leaked to Johnson was almost instantaneously disproven -- a fact Johnson doesn't even bother to mention. Instead, she just allows the FBI's story to change radically and then serves as a vessel for that new story as though it's further incriminating proof, rather than a reflection of the fact that the FBI still has no idea whether it was Ivins who went to New Jersey to mail those letters.
That's because The Post's role here has been and continues to be what the establishment media's role generally is -- to serve government sources and amplify their claims, not to investigate their veracity. That's how it was Saddam Hussein who was the original anthrax culprit, followed by Steven Hatfill, and now Bruce Ivins. It's how Jessica Lynch heroically fought off Iraqi goons in a firefight, how Pat Tillman stood down Al Qaeda monsters until they murdered him, how Iraq possessed mountains of WMDs, and now, how Russia has assaulted the consensus values of the Western World by invading a sovereign country and occupying parts of it for a whole week, etc. etc. All of those narratives came from the Government directly into the pages of The Washington Post, which then uncritically conveyed them, often (as in the case of the Jessica Lynch lies and WMD claims) playing a leading role in doing so.
That's what the Post is doing again with regard to the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. It was the same Post reporters who, on August 4, breathlessly touted one of the most inane FBI leaks of all -- that Ivins was clearly some sort of mad scientist because he possessed what the Post depicted as an exotic germ machine which Ivins had no good reason to possess, a lyophilizer (!), even though possession of a lyophilizer by an anthrax researcher such as Ivins is akin to possession of a pencil by an accountant (The Post headline: "Anthrax Dryer a Key To Probe -- Suspect Borrowed Device From Lab").
Similarly, here is an Associated Press article from last week, by AP's Matt Apuzzo, purporting to report on what it admits are many "meticulously researched" questions that have been raised (including by me) about the FBI's case, yet repeatedly demonizes such skepticism with these phrases, laced throughout the article: "the ingredients for a good conspiracy theory"; "skeptics and conspiracy theorists"; "armchair investigators, bloggers and scientists"; "one of the great conspiracy theories, like whether we landed on the moon or whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone"; "anti-Jewish writers blame the attack on a Zionist plot"; "You can't prove aliens didn't mail the letters."
As always, in Establishment Media World, nothing is more insane or radical than refusing to believe every word the Government says. Even after Iraqi mushroom clouds and the whole litany of Government falsehoods, the establishment hallmark of Seriousness and Sanity is accepting the Government's word. When it says Iraq was behind the attacks, then it was. When they said Hatfill was the culprit, he was. Now that they say that Ivins is, he is, and only "conspiracy theorists" -- comparable to those who disbelieve we landed on the moon -- would question that or demand to see the actual evidence. The FBI is relying, understandably so, on their mindless allies in the media to depict its case against Ivins as so airtight that no real investigation is necessary.
But I think he still has some way to go
Quote:
As always, it's vital to emphasize that Bruce Ivins may have perpetrated those attacks and done so alone. But the more one learns about the FBI's case, the less convincing that case becomes. This week's revelation of new scientific evidence will be an important event in further assessing that case, but in all events, it is inconceivable that the FBI would be permitted to continue to conceal the evidence it possesses and to avoid having to answer very probing questions from a genuinely independent and subpoena-endowed body.
The FBI has admitted that it has no case against Ivins.
As summarized in an article today in the Washington Post:
The FBI has had a difficult time making its case to a skeptical public and scientific community. A hair sample snagged from a Princeton, N.J., mailbox linked to the attacks turned out not to match that of Ivins.
Some Congressional critics have questioned whether one man could really have carried out the elaborate attacks.
But FBI officials continue to press their case.
"I don't think we're ever going to be able to put the suspicions to bed," said Vahid Majidi of the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. "There's always going to be a spore on the grassy knoll."
This is very telling.
The FBI could have said "we will prove to Congress, the scientific community and the public that only Ivins could have done it".
But they didn't.
Instead, the FBI is trying to discredit the many top anthrax scientists who question the government's case against Ivins by using the "grassy knoll" conspiracy-theory smear.
If they had a case against Ivins, they would have presented it, instead of resorting to Bill O'Reilly style smear tactics.
The FBI says it has evidence showing that Bruce Ivins was behind the 2001 anthrax attacks -- but with his death, this will not be tested in court. A full enquiry into the case is needed if justice is to be done.
Was Bruce Ivins a scientist-gone-wrong who single-handedly orchestrated the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States? Or was the 62-year-old anthrax-vaccine researcher at Fort Detrick, Maryland, an emotionally unstable innocent whose profile made him a convenient fall guy for the FBI?
The jury is still out on those questions -- or rather, it would be if one had ever had a chance to hear the evidence. Ivins's apparent suicide last month means there will not be a trial, which makes it all the more important that the government release the evidence it planned to use to accuse him. In full. Now.
The FBI should explain why it thinks the scientific evidence implicates Ivins himself, and not just the flask. As Kemp aptly puts it: "In this country, we prosecute people, not beakers." The absence of such a full disclosure can only feed suspicions that the FBI has again targeted an innocent man in this case -- as it did with former Fort Detrick researcher Steven Hatfill.
This case is too important to be brushed under the carpet. The anthrax attacks killed five people, infected several others, paralysed the United States with fear and shaped the nation's bioterrorism policy. Science and law share a conviction that conclusions require evidence, and that the evidence be debated openly. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:26 am Post subject:
Leahy Expresses Doubts About Suspect in Anthrax Case
Associated Press - SEPTEMBER 17, 2008,
WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he does not believe that Bruce Ivins acted alone in the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks.
Sen. Patrick Leahy was one of the targets of the lethal anthrax-laced letters that killed five and sickened 17 in fall 2001. At a hearing in front of his committee, the Vermont Democrat told FBI Director Robert Mueller that he thinks other people must have been involved.
Sen. Leahy did not say why he believed Dr. Ivins had help and he also cast doubt that the Army scientist was the attacker in the first place.
[Image] Associated Press
FBI Director Mueller, right, listens to Sen. Patrick Leahy prior to testifying before the committee regarding the oversight of the FBI.
"If he is the one who sent the letter, I do not believe in any way, shape or manner that he is the only person involved in this attack on Congress and the American people. I do not believe that at all," Sen. Leahy said.
He added: "I believe there are others involved, either as accessories before or accessories after the fact. I believe that there are others out there, I believe there are others who could be charged with murder. I just want you to know how I feel about it, as one of the people who was aimed at in the attack."
Mr. Mueller did not directly contradict Sen. Leahy, saying, "I understand that concern."
Still, Mr. Mueller maintained the Justice Department's view that Dr. Ivins was the mastermind and sole attacker.
"In the investigation to date, we have looked at every lead and followed every lead to determine whether anybody else was involved, and we will continue to do so," Mr. Mueller told Sen. Leahy. "And even if the case does become closed, if we receive additional evidence, indicating the participation of any additional person, we certainly would pursue that."
The Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation have yet to close the case on the "Amerithrax" investigation after declaring Dr. Ivins its only suspect last month. The Army scientist killed himself in July after learning that prosecutors were preparing to indict him.
Republicans shared Sen. Leahy's doubts surrounding the case.
Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top GOP member of the panel, said he had problems with some of the evidence against Dr. Ivins that has been made public. In a testy exchange with Mr. Mueller, he also demanded to have a say in selecting scientists who will be performing an independent review of the DNA fingerprinting analysis of the anthrax that lies at the heart of the government's case.
The review by the National Academy of Sciences will be made up of private scientists who did not assist the FBI in the investigation, and could take up to 18 months to complete. Mr. Mueller said he would consider allowing the Judiciary Committee to suggest scientists, but noted that the NAS and Justice Department likely would have to agree to it.
"What's there to consider, Director Mueller?" Sen. Specter said. "We'd like to have the authority to name some people there to be sure of its objectivity. We're not interlopers here. This is an oversight matter. What's there to consider?"
Mr. Mueller said "to the extent that the rules of the science allow that to happen, I have no objection to that request."
"Well, that's not far enough," Sen. Specter snapped.
NAS spokesman William Kearney said the organization would "welcome input on potential committee members" from Congress, federal agencies, scientific community and the general public. Still, all suggestions must be approved by the NAS president, Mr. Kearney said.
Sitting in the front row of the audience at the Senate hearing was Steven Hatfill, another Army scientist who for years was wrongly accused of orchestrating the attacks. The Justice Department in June settled a $5.8 million lawsuit with Dr. Hatfill, who claimed his privacy rights were violated by officials speaking with reporters about the case.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), a longtime skeptic of the anthrax investigation, grilled Mr. Mueller on how the FBI could have focused on Dr. Hatfill for years when investigators as early as 2002 had lab records showing Dr. Ivins was conducting late-night research in the days immediately before the deadly letters were mailed......................
Research halted at alleged anthrax mailer's former lab
"The lab was the workplace of Bruce Ivins, who killed himself in July after learning he would be charged in the 2001 anthrax mailings that killed five people," the AP notes. "A memo obtained by The Associated Press says workers are examining the contents of all refrigerators and freezers at the U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick."
Mike Rivero's Commentary:
The lab was also the workplace of Dr. Philip Zack, the man actually caught entering the lab at night without authorization AFTER losing his job over a racially motivated attack on an Egyptian co-worker.
And closing the lab NOW, after Bruve Ivans is conveniently dead and scapegoated for the anthrax letters, suggests there is still a problem with missing pathogens ... which sort of let's Bruce off of the hook, when you think about it........
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Research_halted_at_alleged_anthrax_maile rs_0209.html _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:57 pm Post subject:
Whitehall_Bin_Men wrote:
Research halted at alleged anthrax mailer's former lab
"The lab was the workplace of Bruce Ivins, who killed himself in July after learning he would be charged in the 2001 anthrax mailings that killed five people," the AP notes. "A memo obtained by The Associated Press says workers are examining the contents of all refrigerators and freezers at the U.S. Army Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick."
Mike Rivero's Commentary:
The lab was also the workplace of Dr. Philip Zack, the man actually caught entering the lab at night without authorization AFTER losing his job over a racially motivated attack on an Egyptian co-worker.
And closing the lab NOW, after Bruve Ivans is conveniently dead and scapegoated for the anthrax letters, suggests there is still a problem with missing pathogens ... which sort of let's Bruce off of the hook, when you think about it........
Still sounds mighty fishy to me. Conveniently caught on camera? How come the footage surfaced, unless NWO wanted it so? And a disaffected sacked worker? How come his insinuated action so fitted into a much bigger plan, that of getting the two Congressmen or Senators (which were they?) to get on board the Patriot Act, and stop rocking the boat, and to frighten the US public into aquiessence at the same time?
Muddying the Waters, red herrings, and patsy's spring to mind. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
An investigation into the deadly world of germ weapons, Anthrax War begins in New York in the days following 9/11. Anthrax-laced letters, mailed to media and U.S. senators, killed five people and spread fear and panic throughout the nation.
For filmmaker Bob Coen, who was raised in Zimbabwe where the former white regime has been accused of unleashing anthrax against the black population, biological weapons have a deep personal meaning. He embarks on a journey that raises troubling questions about the FBI's investigation of the 21st century's first act of biological terrorism.
Coen's investigation takes him from the U.S. to the U.K. and from the edge of Siberia to the tip of Africa. In a rare interview, Coen confronts "Doctor Death" Wouter Basson, who headed Project Coast, the South African apartheid-era bio-warfare program. Project Coast used germ warfare against select targets within the country's black population.
Anthrax War also investigates the mysterious deaths of some of the world's leading anthrax scientists, including Dr. David Kelly, the UK's top military microbiologist, the Soviet defector Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, and Dr. Bruce Ivins. The FBI claims - despite the doubts of highly ranked U.S. officials - that Ivins was the only person behind the U.S. anthrax murders.
In tracing the 2001 bio-terror attacks in the U.S. to the heart of the U.S. bio-defense program, this film raises an alarm. These attacks that helped prepare a country for war have also spawned a multi-billion dollar bio-defense boom. The line between bio-offense and bio-defense is becoming extremely thin. Biological weapons research is now being conducted by corporations and private labs without effective government oversight. The international treaty prohibiting the development of offensive bio-weapons may no longer be sufficient to keep the world from drifting towards the unthinkable – biological warfare.
Anthrax War was written by Harold Crooks and Bob Coen, directed by Bob Coen, shot by Dylan Verrechia, edited by Rosella Tursi and produced by Christine LeGoff and Natalie Dubois. Executive producers are Arnie Gelbart, Yves Jeanneau and Eric Nadler. Anthrax War is a Canada-France coproduction produced by Galafilm and TelFrance/Transformer Films for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Société Radio-Canada and ARTE.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
