Looks like it--well, sort of caught; he
committed suicide before they could arrest him. I think some of the conspiracy theories going around, about how the Bush administration used anthrax to push us into war, are completely ridiculous. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much confidence I have that this was actually the perpetrator--Steven Hatfill and Richard Jewell are enough to illustrate that the FBI has a gift for getting things spectacularly wrong. Unfortunately, now that he's dead, we'll almost certainly close the case with his name on it and move on. Possibly leaving the real anthraxomaniac at large.
"I think some of the conspiracy theories going around, about how the Bush administration used anthrax to push us into war, are completely ridiculous. "
Unsupported, yes. But limited to a 'theory'? Then no. Given their track record, its not ridiculous.
There are still unanswered questions to it:
1) Like Greenwald discussed on his Salon article about this, who were the 'sources' who informed ABC News that this anthrax was Iraqi based, which proved to be an outright lie?
2) There were other scientists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#Investigation ) of interest, including a Dr. Philip Zack who had access and possible motive to discredit an Arab colleague with whom he had previous conflicts. Has the investigation cleared Zack?
3) Is there still any of the Ft. Detrick anthrax out there?
I don't believe the suicide should necessarily lead to the assumption of guilt. The weight of a federal investigation and potential career/life effects regardless of the outcome could cause a great deal of stress that could cause someone to commit suicide.
Add rickm to the chorus of people supporting the "super-competent Bush administration" idea. If they could pull that off...
Given the leakiness of every department under Bush, and the general lack of competence or long term planning, believing this is ridiculous.
I would like to extend a big 'F you' to all of those in the media and elsewhere that claimed that Iraq was behind these anthrax attacks.
You're right rick because Iraq was such a wonderful place that they wouldn't even -think- about committing acts of terrorism against the US.
"I don't believe the suicide should necessarily lead to the assumption of guilt. The weight of a federal investigation and potential career/life effects regardless of the outcome could cause a great deal of stress that could cause someone to commit suicide."
Posted by Aaron
In addition, he had just seen up close how his colleague had been treated due to suspicion. He knew, guilty or innocent, that he would be hounded by the press for years and harrassed by the FBI. Don't forget, when the FBI ran over Hatfield's foot and broke it, they arranged to have him cited and fined $5 for it.
At this point, there will probably be little incentive for anyone to challenge the FBI's findings aggressively. There will be no trial. We'll hear the case against him with no defense. I'm sure he'll look guilty, but since they never arrested him in all this time, they probably don't have anything that, by itself, is proof he committed the crime.
My guess, a small drug company called BioPort that produced an anthrax vaccine had lobbyists pushing legisaltion pending before the US gov. to buy a stockpile of the vaccine before the attack. After the attacks the bill passed. So, Ivins gave the anthrax to the drug co. BioPort (ceo is El Hibri from Lebanon, but born in Germany) who then mailed it. simple. (becuase politician recieved money from Bioport, no real investigation can proceed.)
On the other hand, Njorl, it makes less sense for an innocent man to kill himself now. Just a few months ago, Steven Hatfill was a horrible example of an innocent man put through 6+ years of Hell, now he's a guy who's been compensated for 6+ years of Hell with $5,700,000. That may not even up the scales, but it goes a long way towards doing so. Not to mention that the FBI has more incentive now not to make themselves laughing-stocks by screwing over another innocent guy and having to pay another multi-million-dollar settlement, so one would hope that the next innocent guy might not suffer quite so much for so long as Hatfill. If this guy was innocent, killing himself was a really good way to make us all think he was guilty.
Bush didn't need anthrax to mislead this country into war.
Bloodthirsty, amoral idiots waving rhetorical 2x4s and urging the beating of war protesters were all he needed.
The FBI is particularly vulnerable to mistakes when the pressure is high as the Jewel and Hatfill investigations show. These were first guess errors while the media was still in a feeding frenzy. But now the investigation has been cold for years. The FBI is much less susceptible to error under these circumstances.
I also don't accept that many people would kill themselves in advance when they're innocent. It's much more likely after a trial even if the verdict is not-guilty.
Definitive it is not, but this isn't a 50-50 guess.
sam-
Its one thing to wonder that Iraq was behind the attacks when one is looking for suspects. But ABC News CLAIMED that Saddam was beyond the attacks.
it's completely unpossible that anyone associated with an administration that has systematically eviscerated constitutional rights; lied the country into a catastrophic war; debased and defiled federal agencies by stacking them with corporate cronies and incompetent hacks; and abrogated international treaties could even be a teeny, tiny bit responsible for a biological attack on high profile people during one of the most unhinged periods in this country's recent history.
it's completely unpossible.
p.s. oh, and sy hersh's latest revelation about how president cheney and staff met to discuss ways to provoke iran into a war.
it's completely unpossible that anyone associated with an administration that has systematically eviscerated constitutional rights; lied the country into a catastrophic war; debased and defiled federal agencies by stacking them with corporate cronies and incompetent hacks; and abrogated international treaties could even be a teeny, tiny bit responsible for a biological attack on high profile people during one of the most unhinged periods in this country's recent history.
it's completely unpossible.
p.s. oh, and sy hersh's latest revelation about how president cheney and staff met to discuss ways to provoke iran into a war.
mj makes a good point, but on weighing on the other side is the fact that the case just makes no sense. What was the motive?! Really only two things make sense: either the guy was flat-out crazy (in which case his colleagues would probably notice) or he underwent some sort of ideological rebirth and became a committed terrorist (in which case there would probably be some evidence of his conversion).
Remember Vince Foster? He was a very smart but sensite guy who in the viscious political climate, developed depression, and killed himself.
This Ivins character is described as quiet and shy. Isn't there a possibility that the investigation drove him to suicide?
linda,
I am not picking on you in anyway, but I am curious about the word "unpossible". Until just the last few months, I had never seen it, but since then, I have seen it over 20 times. Where does it come from?
Remember Vince Foster? He was a very smart but sensite guy who in the viscious political climate, developed depression, and killed himself.
Don't be so naive. Saddam killed him.
Linda,
Until I got to the Cheny part, I thought you were describing the Clinton White House.
sam:
Unless you are a nutter, I suggest you read Glenn Greenwald today. If you did, you'd know better than to say what you did.
What, no rant about how the government made this man's life no longer worth living?
Yes, obviously, murder is worse than prostitution, but it's also true that there haven't been anthrax attacks in seven years, either.
I think some of the conspiracy theories going around, about how the Bush administration used anthrax to push us into war, are completely ridiculous.
Could you please exert a modicum of effort and tell us which conspiracy threories you mean? Thanks in advance. While you're at it, what do you think Glenn Greenwald got wrong about the Anthrax Situation. Thanks again.
I am curious about the word "unpossible". Until just the last few months, I had never seen it, but since then, I have seen it over 20 times. Where does it come from?
It's a Simpsons quote:
"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible!"
sam stupidly writes: "You're right rick because Iraq was such a wonderful place that they wouldn't even -think- about committing acts of terrorism against the US."
Who gives a damn what "they" thought about? The fact is that Iraq never committed any acts of terrorism against the US. The US, on the other hand, has committed innumerable war crimes against the Iraqis.
Ah, the Bushpig legacy!
What's wrong with the word "unpossible"? It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Add rickm to the chorus of people supporting the "super-competent Bush administration" idea. If they could pull that off...
Given that the non-conspiracy theory would be that one man stuffed anthrax into a few envelopes and sent them out, what exactly are we proposing would take a "super-competent Bush Administration" to accomplish?
The conspiracy isn't that complicated:
1) Somebody at the top gives Ivins an order to mail out some anthrax and make it look like jihadists. Since he's military, and arch-conservative to boot, it's easy to convince him that, in the long run, this will benefit America.
2) When the Ft. Detrick lab is provided with samples to "solve the crime", Ivins is the one who gets to analyze them. He's sure to leak (anonymously) to ABC that the tests found "bentonite", and the top admin guys running this whole thing are sure to corroborate him. They're all very credible so ABC runs with it.
3) The Bush Administration has plenty of people, top to bottom, who will lie about anything they're told to, for any reason, out of loyalty. We've seen it in a hundred instances.
So, I'm not getting what part of this conspiracy requires super-human competency on the part of the Bush administration. We already know that people involved with the administration can be relied upon to lie even when it's not in their direct self-interest, and why would they fear investigation? If it comes up with Congress they can claim executive privilege. If they're convicted of perjury or obstruction, they're guaranteed a pardon. The hardest part of the whole thing would be getting Ivins to send out anthrax and lie about it, and then getting the FBI to investigate the wrong person.
And, hey, what do you know, those are the exact things we all agree happened. The only missing parts is someone to give an order to endanger lives for political expediency and a whole lot of people to lie about it, and who honestly thinks the Bush administration is incapable of that these days?
what exactly are we proposing would take a "super-competent Bush Administration" to accomplish?
For starters, not leaking to the entire world that they'd done it. The Bush Administration is approximately 0 for 75 on Secret Nefarious Plans so far.
The Bush Administration couldn't even get away with secretly torturing foreign Muslim terrorists without a dozen anonymous sources spouting off to every Pulitzer-hungry hack in Washington. The idea that they could have secretly hatched a plot to murder a bunch of Americans AND pulled it off AND left no evidence from having done so AND had nobody involved talk to the press? Pure insanity.
Then there's the question of why they didn't both framing either Saddam, bin Laden, or any of their other enemies. Instead there's a lame attempt to finger some random scientist, followed by six years of looking like Keystone Kops. *This* is what they risked Death Row for? You'd sound less insane if you blamed the anthrax attacks on aliens.
and who honestly thinks the Bush administration is incapable of that these days?
Incapable of deliberately murdering Americans for political advantage?
Gee. How "unthinkable".
For starters, not leaking to the entire world that they'd done it.
They got away with the warrantless, illegal wiretapping for years. And we're not talking about decades of complete nondisclosure, like MK-ULTRA, or a vast conspiracy, like the Tuskeegee experiment. We're talking, at most, three or four people including Ivins, concealing the truth behind a false flag operation for 6 years or so.
The Bush Administration couldn't even get away with secretly torturing foreign Muslim terrorists without a dozen anonymous sources spouting off to every Pulitzer-hungry hack in Washington.
Again, they did get away with it for years, largely with the aid of the mainstream media, who delayed publication of the material either out of a misplaced sense of national loyalty, or a desire to avoid charges of "manipulating elections."
The idea that they could have secretly hatched a plot to murder a bunch of Americans AND pulled it off AND left no evidence from having done so AND had nobody involved talk to the press? Pure insanity.
Again, what's insane about it? Or rather what's any less insane about the idea that one lone nutball could, single-handedly, mastermind the second scariest domestic terror attack ever?
One guy sent out the anthrax letters. We know that. Why is it any less reasonable to suggest that he did so at another's behest?
We only know about the US Attorney's scandal because of one blog. None of the media touched it for weeks. What else might they have completely ignored? What might even the blogs have missed?
Then there's the question of why they didn't both framing either Saddam, bin Laden, or any of their other enemies.
What, you mean like the way they had Dick Cheney and John McCain on every talk show, talking about how they "knew" the anthrax had come from Iraq? And then using that to pull the media in line with the march to war?
Incapable of deliberately murdering Americans for political advantage?
I think the deaths were actually unintentional. It was supposed to be a scare, not actual murder. Somebody, after all, did warn Richard Cohen and all the other beltway boys that they should pick up some Cipro in advance of an anthrax attack. When we thought the anthrax was a jihadist attack that didn't seem so weird, we just thought someone in the CIA had intelligence on an attack.
But if it was just one guy at Ft. Detrick, who warned Cohen and the others? Why would Ivins have done it? And who were the anonymous sources who "leaked" the discovery of the betonite?
What's insane, here, is that these are the acts of a single individual. There was just too much going on for Ivins to have acted alone.
I'm wondering if it's certain that Ivins' death really was suicide. Taking pills is usually a woman's thing, men are more likely to shoot themselves. In addition, OD'ing on Tylenol is said to be a particularly hideous way to go, something that Ivins certainly would have known.
If we're supposed to believe that the DC Madam, Mrs. Deb "I'll never commit suicide, not never ever, and if it looks like I did, I was actually murdered by the nation's elites who I have dirt on" Palfrey killed herself (on the basis, I guess, of a "friend" that heard her say she'd do it, once, in a conversation he can't quite exactly recall), I see no reason not to believe Ivins did, too.
Wait...
The term 'conspiracy theory' is a misnomer in this case. The term is a rhetorical grenade used as a shorthand way to dismiss facts, ideas and yes theories about events. It is a fact that many GOP politicians and partisans explicitly stated the high probability that Iraq launched the anthrax attack letters and that this information had come to them from high sources in the intelligence community. The same goes for ABC news and myriad other news, information and opinion sources.
There is nothing theoretical about that. Stated simply as above there is no theory either. It's just a fact. Oh wait, there is a conspiracy theory in there. The Iraq/anthrax story tellers were spreading a conspiracy theory. Recall that there was never any bentonite found in the samples. Yet this 'fact' was used to conclude the probable involvement of Iraq. A conspiracy theory is always a series of 'facts', several being false, strung together to reach a conclusion.
It's ironic but hardly surprising that GOP partisans would declare the laying out the facts about the spread of conspiracy theory were in fact themselves a conspiracy theory. There is a certain beauty in it all really.
They got away with the warrantless, illegal wiretapping for years.
Let's see. Leading Congressional Democrats were notified of the program, no American appears to have been harmed by it, and word nevertheless got out within a few years. This, to you, is evidence that a conspiracy of dozens of people within the Bush Administration could and would have murdered a bunch of Americans for no reason without leaving any evidence at all of having done so.
We're talking, at most, three or four people including Ivins
We're talking about forty or fifty people at a bare minimum. Everyone in a position to handle the evidence or question Ivins would have to be in on the conspiracy from the beginning. That includes everyone from George Bush on down to the lowliest FBI agents involved in the case.
And they cooked this up in a couple of days (wait, let me guess: you think they were in on the 9/11 attacks too). They did this to "secure political advantage", because the massive public support Bush had from the 9/11 attacks alone wasn't enough -- they needed to "scare" a handful of people, because thousands of corpses lying at the feet of radical Islam wasn't enough of a motivation for America.
Uh huh. Ok.
what's any less insane about the idea that one lone nutball could, single-handedly, mastermind the second scariest domestic terror attack ever?
Because the idea that a man who worked with anthrax for a living could have mailed a handful of envelopes with anthrax in them is just crazy. A massive government conspiracy to *order* the nut to mail out anthrax in order to "scare" people without actually killing them makes *much* more sense. The truly damning proof of how pervasive the conspiracy was is that it left no evidence.
By the way -- "second scariest attack ever"? It *might* qualify as the second scariest domestic terror attack since 9/11.
Somebody, after all, did warn Richard Cohen and all the other beltway boys that they should pick up some Cipro in advance of an anthrax attack.
Richard Cohen claims to have been warned, sure. No other "beltway boys" have confirmed the story -- and of course since Cohen wasn't neither an administration insider nor a target of the letters, there's no reason he would have been told. The actual targets of the letters weren't forewarned.
So now we have one of the conspirators forewarning Richard Cohen (no other "beltway boys" have claimed they were warned), a liberal reporter from the Washington Post, that he needs to carry Cipro, even though no letter was sent to Cohen or anyone else at the Post. Meanwhile, the people the letters WERE sent to received no warning at all. This is part of a conspiracy to "scare" people without killing anyone. Right.
I see no reason not to believe Ivins did, too. Wait...
... and then, after they were done with their secret conspiracy to mail anthrax to Congress and the news media in order to "scare" the two or three Americans who weren't already scared after 9/11, they bumped off the guy who did the job for them. But first they waited seven years.
Seriously, Chet, you're not sane. Seek help.
Re: Unsupported, yes. But limited to a 'theory'? Then no. Given their track record, its not ridiculous.
Um, we are not talking about some vague event that happened in 1800 BC. We're talking about something that occured well within living, even recent, memory. I don't recall a big deal being made out of the anthrax business during the run-up to the Iraq War. In fact, I recall the whole business being largely, perhaps deliberately, forgotten if only because by the time Bush and Cheney were beating the war drums against Saddam the available evidence in the case pointed to some domestic rightwing wacko, and that was not something they wanted to bring up.
Re: I'm wondering if it's certain that Ivins' death really was suicide.
I'm not sure it would be possible to force-feed someone a lot of pills, at least not without leaving obvious signs of rough handling on their corpse. Now if the guy had been found hanged, shot or at the bottom of a bridge there might be room for conspiracy theorizing here.
Re: By the way -- "second scariest attack ever"?
Definitely not. The OKC bombing still holds the red ribbon for second place there. Unless of course you go all the way back to some of the stuff that happened in the Civil War, which can put even 9-11 in the shade.
If you're thinking in terms of conspiracies and leaks, I think you need to consider two differences between the anthrax attacks and the torture/wiretapping programs.
a. The anthrax attacks could be done with the participation of a really small number of people, like one or two. When only (say) two people know about the secret, and both face the death penalty if they say anything about it, it's a hell of a lot easier to keep them from talking to the press.
b. A lot of people will keep quiet when they find out about something their government is doing which seems legitimate to them. So, a lot of folks were involved in the wiretapping stuff, and mostly they thought it was reasonable to keep secret about. Fewer people were willing to keep quiet about torture, but some were. I think you'd find it damned hard to find many people who'd be willing to keep quiet about intentional murder of US citizens to carry out some kind of political manipulation.
(b) is very important when you're talking about accidental leaks to random people. If some random phone company employee finds about his company's helping with wiretapping terrorists, he may very well just accept this as reasonable and keep quiet about it. If some random postal employee finds out the postal service is helping distribute anthrax-laden envelopes to Congress, he's almost certainly not going to keep quiet.
Despite the above, there are a couple things that make me wonder about the possibility of something worse than a lone nut being behind the anthrax attacks:
a. The attacks seemed to be almost perfectly tailored to spread panic among the media and congress, with a minimum of actual harm.
b. The attacks had a very small death toll. I have zero expertise here, but I have to suspect that if I were an evil bioweapons researcher with access to bioweapons agents, I could manage to do a lot more with it than the anthrax attacks did.
c. The main suspect has just conveniently died, making further investigation unlikely and probably unfruitful.
The sequence of the 9/11 attacks, anthrax attacks, and DC sniper attacks served to keep a certain chunk of people in a scared siege mentality for quite awhile, and this had a huge impact on our political direction.
Now, that said, I have a really hard time buying an official act of the government that involved mounting an attack on ourselves, even a low-body-count one. But the lone nut that just conveniently kills himself just before being indicted looks a bit odd to me. (Though at least it's not one of those comedic cases where the guy investigating the mafia suddenly commits suicide by shooting himself in the head twice.)
There is a very relevant personal slant on this at http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/08/was-ivins-anthrax-killer.html#nbicomments
Leading Congressional Democrats were notified of the program, no American appears to have been harmed by it, and word nevertheless got out within a few years. This, to you, is evidence that a conspiracy of dozens of people within the Bush Administration could and would have murdered a bunch of Americans for no reason without leaving any evidence at all of having done so.
A "bunch"? Only five people died. "Dozens"? Like I said, the conspiracy takes only two or three people to be fully-informed, and then a bunch of people to simply tell specific lies on another person's instructions.
Are you telling me that there's nobody in the Bush Administration, circa-2001, that would have told a deliberate lie on orders to do so from the White House? Really?
Everyone in a position to handle the evidence or question Ivins would have to be in on the conspiracy from the beginning.
The only person they put in a position to handle the evidence was Ivins, which is why it was almost the perfect crime.
And I don't get it. If it takes "forty or fifty people" to be involved if Ivins was acting on orders, why is it any more reasonable to suggest that Ivins acted alone? Where are his "forty or fifty people"?
And they cooked this up in a couple of days (wait, let me guess: you think they were in on the 9/11 attacks too).
No, I don't think that they were "in" on the 9/11 attacks. Try to argue with my point, not a strawman. But we know that they wanted to drum up a war with Iraq as early as June 2001. 9/11 may have dropped in their laps, but they may have had a plan to use a domestic anthrax scare to drum up support for the war all along, and then when it became clear that 9/11 couldn't be blamed on Saddam, they pulled the trigger on it.
Am I the last person alive who remembers the evening of 9/11? When everybody made their run for the gas stations, for fear we'd just seen the end of oil imports from the Middle East? Was no one listening to the radio when White House officials denied up and down that Osama bin Laden could have pulled off an attack of this magnitude, and that it must have been Saddam? They were desperate to find an excuse to attack Iraq. Within the week we knew that OBL was responsible, and what a surprise - that's when the anthrax attacks hit - when Saddam could no longer have been credibly blamed for 9/11.
they bumped off the guy who did the job for them. But first they waited seven years.
Maybe he did kill himself. That's hardly inconsistent with a government conspiracy.
Honestly you've offered nothing against any of my points. If you accept that this could have been one man acting alone, why is it so hard to accept the idea of three men? Five men? Or, one man in power, one anthrax researcher, and a lot of people who will lie on behalf of the administration out of loyalty?
Given how many safeguards exist against the procurement of weaponized anthrax at a military base, the "lone gunman" theory makes even less sense.
I don't recall a big deal being made out of the anthrax business during the run-up to the Iraq War.
Then there's something wrong with your memory, Jon. Glenn Greenwald has a ton of links that show how important the Iraq-anthrax connection was in drumming up support for the war among the media. No less a source than Richard Cohen:
The anthrax may not have been important to you, but it was clearly important to the media, who viewed themselves the target of the attacks. And once they were on board, you got on board, too. We all did.
Arguably, according to plan. It was certainly very convenient, either way.
I'm not sure it would be possible to force-feed someone a lot of pills
Wasn't it liquid Tylenol?
Looked at from the position of Bush's mom, you have to worry; what is the guy going to do for fun come next February? Cracking unwelcome bawdy jokes in corporate board rooms just probably isn't going to get it anymore.
Th first person killed worked for the Enquirer as I recall. He had some low degree of separation from one of the 9/11 hijackers. Anybody remember?
Ivins being the guy satisfies the criteria of motive (as well). It would have an aggressive passive-aggressive logic to it; 'fund my research' it says or 'make me a hero.' Such a needy person would not have have the ego strength to face indictment.
My first post making a point about Megan's use of the term "conspiracy theory" was a mess so I will restate.
The story that was spread by many GOP politicians and partisans and many news organizations that Saddam's Iraq was somehow the source of the Anthrax letters was itself a conspiracy theory. The false fact about the presence of bentonite in the sample was the key.
Conspiracy theories always depend upon a group of facts, some being accurate, some inaccurate, strung together in a chain of causation.
Pointing out that this story was trumpeted by political partisans is a simple fact. . Along with a whole series of conspiracy theories from aluminum tubes to Prauge meetings to mobile biological weapons labs, were used obviously and without question in a deliberate well thought out and centrally planned public relations campaign to garner support of the invasion of Iraq.
Now, mention of the simple uncomplicated facts of the spread anthrax conspiracy theory story is being labeled a conspiracy theory. This isn't some logical fallacy at work. It's stupidity, or desperate propaganda. It's "completely ridiculous".
The White House denied the story from the very beginning, and forcefully. That's extremely hard to match with any of the strong-form "Bush knew" or "people planned it" theories.
What I think happened is worse, in many ways:
1) A lunatic, who stood to profit massively off of the ensuing panic, tried to kill people with anthrax and pin it on radical Muslims
2) This lunatic then leaked to the press that bentonite was found in the anthrax, thus falsely linking Saddam to the attacks
3) Either some ass-covering scientists or OSP Cheney hacks decide to support the lie once they hear about it and give Ross his confirmation (this is the one place in the story where I would accept some truly evil behavior on the part of non-Ivins actors, because I don't understand how Ross got 3-4 sources on this lie. It's not a pre-formed conspiracy, just a hack playing a game that he believed was for the best. It's also possible that some other people from Ft. Detrick were trying to cover their asses and create confusion about the basic fact that the anthrax came from that government facility - which, if true, is pretty damned evil, too.)
4) ABC News runs the story as hard as they can, both because war-mongering lies sell, and because the rush to war has always been profitable for the largest corporations
The one mystery is Ross' sources, in this telling, and I hope we find out. The rest of it isn't a new conspiracy, it's a part of the old one, where the Bush administration and its enablers in the media lied and deceived their way into a way which never should have been authorized and never should have been waged.
What I think happened is worse, in many ways:
'Think' in the sense that you use the same organ in concocting yarns to spin as you do in making rational inductions and deductions.
'Think' in the sense that you use the same organ in concocting yarns to spin as you do in making rational inductions and deductions.
We're all waiting with bated breath for your explanation of how Richard Cohen and others were warned to be carrying anti-anthrax medications, and who the four anonymous sources were that informed ABC falsely that "bentonite" had been discovered in the anthrax samples.
Those aren't "yarns", those are things that happened. How do they come to happen under your "one crazy guy acting alone" conspiracy theory?
'Think' in the sense that you use the same organ in concocting yarns to spin as you do in making rational inductions and deductions.
Huh? What, exactly, do you dispute?
Someone stole anthrax from US Gov't labs, sent it off with notes implying Islamic radicalism, and killed people. ABCNews somehow put together a report that this anthrax came from Iraq, with four independent sources, even though this report was based entirely on a lie. Who were those four people?
It seems obvious that one of them was the actual killer, but who were the other three?
Chet - why did Cohen hear about Cipro? Cipro is the medically recommended treatment for anthrax and other weaponizable biological agents. The government after 9/11 was frantically trying to prepare for future attacks. People in government were surely talking about Cipro all the time, so they told Cohen. There is absolutely nothing to explain there. Anthrax isn't some otherwise unknown obscure agent, and Cipro isn't some double-secret anthrax-only cure - anthrax is among the most discussed biological weapons, and Cipro is really good medicine for a variety of biological ailments.
The government after 9/11 was frantically trying to prepare for future attacks. People in government were surely talking about Cipro all the time, so they told Cohen.
Cipro's side effects are a little too severe to take it as a general prophylactic without at least something to indicate a biological attack. Furthermore according to the Washington Post White House staff may have been taking Cipro even before the 9/11 attacks.
Maybe it was just hyper-caution. Taking Cipro without an indication of a threat is a little over-cautious, especially since Cipro can cause severe neurological damage. In the light of all the other shenanigans it's a little suspicious, I guess. There's a lot of unanswered questions here - and, it turns out, hardly any evidence actually linking Ivins to the crime.
Cipro's side effects are a little too severe to take it as a general prophylactic without at least something to indicate a biological attack.
Chet -- I have taken Cipro as a prophylactic on trips to places where the food makes you sick. Nothing happened to me. My doctor told me nothing would happen to me.
Hence, either I am a superhuman freak or you are completely, utterly wrong. I suspect that this is not the only claim you have pulled out of the bowels of your intestines in this thread.
Keep on fantasizing about the evilness of the Bush administration, though, if it makes you feel better.
"I think some of the conspiracy theories going around, about how the Bush administration used anthrax to push us into war, are completely ridiculous."
I disagree with you about this, the news I hear is that the anthrax has an identifiable fingerprint and that the anthrax found had strong evidence linking it to this lab and not from a foreign source. Despite this McCain and ABC was reporting that it was from Iraq. If you are in the middle (or start) of an investigation and the evidence is unclear or pointing to a domestic source, what is the motive for leaking info to the press that it is from Iraq?
I think some of the conspiracy theories going around, about how the Bush administration used anthrax to push us into war, are completely ridiculous.
Not so fast, lassie. Glenn Greenwald has all over this, and while he doesn't believe in conspiracy theories, either, he thinks that this suicide is a very convenient way for the Bush administration to have closure on the case before too many questions arise. Remember, antrhax letters were sent to only 2 senators - Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, and they were the two senior Democratic senators who were holding the Patriot Act vote at the time. Not a coincidence at all. Questions still remain.
Dr. Ivans may have been the source of the anthrax. Who sent the letters? It would be someone who works in the shawdows, no? And that would be Dick Cheney. Considering all he has done so far, including the revelation that he proposed killing Navy SEALS dressed as Iranians to provoke a war, it's pretty plausible.
The US was reeling from 9/11, and the anthrax letters made it seem that suddenly nothing was safe, not even the neighborhood postman. The Bush administration rang the alarm bells over biological and chemical attacks to the point of absurdity (plastic sheeting and duct tape). No way should this story go away now.
"On the other hand, Njorl, it makes less sense for an innocent man to kill himself now. Just a few months ago, Steven Hatfill was a horrible example of an innocent man put through 6+ years of Hell, now he's a guy who's been compensated for 6+ years of Hell with $5,700,000...."
Not really. He has spent all of his savings already. His trial has not even started. He faces a choice between bankrupting his family for a chance at being exonerated or killing himself while they still have their house. Victory at trial would not mean he gets his legal fees back or that he wins a big settlement like Hatfil. If the government is careful,they could make his life hell without generating a civil suit. Considering what's at stake, the government would use the most capable prosecution team they can put together. Innocence is certainly not adequate to win a case against a good prosecuter. It requires at least a nearly as skillful defense team.
Perhaps once we get a real president in the White House this case will be fairly investigated. For now the case against Ivins seems to be falling apart faster than Cindy McCain after a day with no painkillers.
How in the world can someone make a statement like this - "I don't believe in conspiracy theories." That is tantamount to saying "I don't believe in history." My god people - humans have been conspiring in secret for nefarious purposes forever. The dumbest thing I've ever heard - "I don't believe in conspiracy theories." And for anyone to dare utter that inanity with regard to our current Caligulance is just plain old fashioned stupid. Almost daily now we get news of some backroom machinations and skullduggery. Newsflash - Bush and Cheney both are psychopaths by any clinical definition of the word you can think of.
http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/anthrax/anthraxtargets.shtml