Posted with permission of author
August 01, 2008
More terrorism, of the bio-right-wing kind?
Call me far too rational if you wish, but I do not believe the Anthrax attacks were a form of right-wing terrorism that we see coming from the Christian fundamentalists, such as the Knoxville shooting this week. By now you have likely heard that a suspect who was about to be indicted conveniently offed himself this week.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Suicide_raises_questions_about_attempts_to_0801.html Now let's examine the facts of what happened during the anthrax attacks:
1. Starting a week after 9/11, a series of letters were mailed containing weapons grade anthrax to:
2 Dem leaders in the Senate
5 letters were mailed to the "liberal media" and strangely, to the New York Post (all in NYC) as well as a tabloid publication in Boca Raton, Florida. It is this letter that I think unravels the idea that this was a right-wing terrorist attack.
The above letters came from New Jersey
The Post anthrax was different from the rest, as it was darker in color and more thick (this letter also shows that whomever was behind the attacks may have meant to use the Post letter as cover, to distract from the targets all being left-leaning)
2. Despite scientists examining the anthrax spores concluding it was weapon's grade anthrax
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s726834.htm, the FBI told Washington Post later that it was not.
3. The envelopes with the anthrax contained letters incriminating someone of Muslim origin in the crimes, as they all repeatedly stated "death to Israel," "death to America," and "Allah is Great."
4. The anthrax strain, known as the Ames strain, is not easily found (as one might find a gun to use in a shooting), nor can it be easily purchased. In fact this strain of anthrax was distributed by ONE location, Ft. Detrick MA and distributed to a small group of defense contractors.
5. The water used on the Anthrax spores
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8449gov1.html was determined to have come from the Northern US, and that the strains were cultured no more than two weeks before the attacks (that is to say, BEFORE 9/11).
To summarize thus far, a military grade, American-made form of Anthrax was released on US soil targeting liberals, the "liberal press" and publication in Boca Raton. All evidence pointed to Ft. Detrick, including the water used in the cultivation of the Anthrax spores. Whomever sent the strains of Anthrax were not targeting "liberals" because the attacker was a conservative, rather, the attacker attempted to implicate Muslisms. Despite the Anthrax attacks beginning a week after the 9/11 attacks, the bio-weapon was cultured roughly two weeks before the 9/11 attacks. Now, let's continue:
6. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Determined that the type of make-up of the Anthrax was similar to that of the type of Anthrax made by Iraq
http://www.afip.org/images/public/nl081002.pdf(this detail supports the notion that this was not a right-wing terrorist of the Christian veriety, but rather, something else
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1360627/Building-the-case-against-Iraq.html):
"THE Taliban regime may be the current target in America's war on terrorism but the Bush administration is already building a case against a much bigger foe - Iraq.
James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, ambassador and Pentagon official who now describes himself as a "private citizen", is the man entrusted with investigating Iraqi involvement
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1340799/Saddam-may-be-target-Americans-are-looking-for.html in the September 11 attacks and anthrax outbreaks.
The Iraqi National Congress, the exiled group that opposes Saddam Hussein, said it recently held meetings in London with Mr Woolsey. Administration sources have said his trip was funded and approved by Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary.
Such is the sensitivity of the Iraq issue, Mr Woolsey will make no comment about the exact nature of his brief. He told The Telegraph: "I was in London and that's it."
But he made clear that he believed there were "substantial and growing indications" that a state was behind the attacks.
The milled, "weaponised" anthrax that virtually shut down Congress and killed two postal workers has increased his suspicions. So too have reports of meetings involving Mohammad Atta
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1341111/US-points-finger-of-suspicion-at-%27rogue%27-states.html, a leading hijacker, in Prague."
Remember that we now know that no such meeting occurred, but was rather fabricated out of OSP to help Cheney make his case against the Iraq war.
7. The FBI took 7 years to investigate a weapon that a). few people had access to, b). could have ONLY originated from a single source-facility (based on both the water and the strain), and MOST importantly, were unable to use a genetic comparison
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804EEDF1738F93AA35752C1A9679C8B63 because:
"Shortly after the first case of anthrax arose, the F.B.I. said it had no objection to the destruction of a collection of anthrax samples at Iowa State University, but some scientists involved in the investigation now say that collection may have contained genetic clues valuable to the inquiry.
<snip>
Last month, after consulting with the F.B.I., Iowa State University in Ames destroyed anthrax spores collected over more than seven decades and kept in more than 100 vials. A variant of the so-called Ames strain had been implicated in the death of a Florida man from inhalation anthrax, and the university was nervous about security.
<snip>
If the archive still existed, it would by no means solve the mystery. But scientists said a precise match between the anthrax that killed four people and a particular strain in the collection might have offered hints as to when that bacteria had been isolated and, perhaps, how widely it had been distributed to researchers. And that, in turn, might have given investigators important clues to the killer's identity."
Why did Iowa University suddenly destroy Anthrax spores they had (Ames strain) after keeping them up to that point for 70 years? Who at the FBI gave the order for the spores to be destroyed?
8. Today we learn that a man named Bruce E. Ivens, a researcher at Fort Detrick was about to be indicted for the Anthrax attacks, but before the authorities could indict him, he killed himself. For 18 years this guy was the top Anthrax researcher and never once during that time did he decide to culture spores and then send them out into the world. What prompted him to culture spores before 9/11 and send them out a week after, blaming Muslims in the process? Why did the military attempt to tie these spores to Iraq?
One man could not have done all of this and one man had no reason to do so in the way he did. Most strikingly of all:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011023/aponline201158_000.htm"On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was "a precaution," according to one person directly involved.
At that time, nobody could guess the dimensions of the terrorists' plot.
Now, Bush said on Tuesday, "There's no question that the evil-doers are continuing to try to harm America and Americans."'
Now it is likely the case that someone working at Ft. Detrick was directly involved and it is possible that this person was Bruce E. Ivens. But he did not and could not have acted alone. He could not have informed the White House to start taking Cirpro. He could not have had a private interest to start a war with Iraq and somehow insert the talking points into the Armed Forces Institute of Pathathology report. He could not have told Iowa University to destroy the spores. He had no reason to target the National Inquirer. He had no reason to blame the attacks on Muslims. Even if he was the most extreme Christian fundementalist, why would he have an interst in blaming the attacks on Iraq and then someone manage to insert that connection into the Dick Cheney talkings points on Prague?
Is this conspiracy theory? No. This is a criminal conspiracy, period. The two questions that remain are a). who is part of this conspiracy and b). what is the nature of this conspiracy (to politicize a bio-terrorism attack vs. ordering a bio-terrorism attack)? These questions will continue to remain unsolved, I think, for a good long time. Do I have my suspicions? Yes. But right now, it is best to simply look at all of the evidence and ask ourselves some very painful questions. Of course this is just my opinion and entirely based on historical information and public statements by government officials. I could be entirely wrong that this was not some lone psycho and it surely would not be the first time I was wrong. But I do think we have to look at all of the evidence before we pin all of this on a single, conviniently dead, American terrorist working for a government bio-weapons lab.
Also see the following:
Glen Greenwald over at Salon asking about the Iraq issue
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/Thing Progress has footage of McCain trying to tie Anthrax to Iraq
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/mccain-anthrax-iraq/http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/more-terrorism.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
