Showing posts with label anthrax attacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anthrax attacks. Show all posts

Friday, December 19, 2008

Rice: Bush didn't ignore any 9/11 'warning,' because there was no 'when, where, how'

This is absolute b.s.!

They were warned about hijacked planes being used to bomb places like, for example, the G-8 in Genoa in June of 2001. They took that warning, by Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, seriously enough to put Junior on a U.S. ship of the coast of Italy every night during the conference.

They were warned and warned and warned. The White House went deaf! They were warned about the possibility of hijackings. We know how to prevent hijackings. Did they even warn the FAA and airport security? How about simply warning the people to be more alert and telling them what to look for.

The Director of the CIA was running around with his hair on fire saying over and over that we were going to get hit.

The FBI was refusing to allow searches that may have prevented the attacks.

I do not believe that the people who could have stopped it wanted it stopped. After all, the Neocons needed their new Pearl Harbor and they got it.

And....by the way, now that the Bushites are on their way out of office and Washington, D.C., it is time for a new and independent commission on 9/11 and the anthrax attacks.

Bush loves to say that there have been no further attacks on U.S. soil, but he seems to forget the anthrax attacks which, like the attack on 9/11, happened on his watch, no matter who did it. It is quite remarkable to me that Bush nor Cheney talk about the anthrax attacks, not ever. Much like what happened to the British weapons inspector, David E. Kelly, a dead guy gets the blame and his colleagues come to his defense. Did Ivins really do the anthrax attacks. We will never really know the answer to that unless there is a truly independent commission to dig deeply into the attacks which led us to this disastrous place,

"Dark actors playing dangerous games," indeed!

12/18/2008 @ 9:00 am

Filed by David Edwards and Muriel Kane


Outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has acknowledged that she was responsible for the security failures that made possible the 9/11 attacks. However, she did so only fleetingly and in a backhanded manner before returning to justifications of her actions.

"I do take responsibility -- but this was a systemic failure," Rice told CNN's Zain Verjee during an exit interview on Wednesday.

Verjee had begun pressing Rice with a question about whether she had ignored warnings of the forthcoming al Qaeda attack.

"This is simply not true," Rice replied, saying that there had been only "a single item that said bin Ladin determined to attack – not when, where, how."

Rice insisted the real cause of the failure was that "we did not have the capacity in our systems to share information between law enforcement, the intelligence agencies, and to be able to act in a very quick and decisive way."

"The worst breach of national security in the history of the United States came under your watch," Verjee persisted.

"Absolutely," Rice agreed.

"Did you ever consider resigning?" asked Verjee. "Taking responsibility?"

"I do take responsibility," Rice finally acknowledged, "but this was a systemic failure. ... We, the administrations before us, had not thought of this as the kind of war against the terrorists that we were going to have to wage."

Verjee later brought up former Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent statement that "frankly, the National Security Council system didn’t function in a way that I thought it should have functioned. We didn’t always vet everything in front of the President."

Rice, who was head of the National Security Council at the time of September 11, insisted, "Any principal who ever wished to say something to the President, I facilitated it within hours – not within days, within hours. And the President sat with his National Security team, and everybody had an opportunity to speak their mind."


A full transcript of the interview is available here.


This video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast Dec. 18, 2008.

Download video via RawReplay.com


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Friday, November 28, 2008

New Details on F.B.I.’s False Start in Anthrax Case



November 26, 2008

WASHINGTON — A federal court on Tuesday unsealed documents that shed new light on why F.B.I. anthrax investigators spent years pursuing the wrong man, Steven J. Hatfill, who was exonerated by the government this year and received a $4.6 million settlement.

Search warrant affidavits said that Dr. Hatfill filled prescriptions for the antibiotic Cipro, the preferred drug for treatment of anthrax, two days before each of the mailings of anthrax-laced letters in September and October 2001. Under questioning by agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he denied taking Cipro at that time, the affidavits said.

The documents report that Dr. Hatfill spoke of serving in a Rhodesian military unit accused of starting an anthrax epidemic in 1979, told an acquaintance that it would take a “Pearl Harbor-type attack” to awaken the United States to the bioterrorist threat and kept an anthrax simulant in his apartment. They said Dr. Hatfill had access to the Ames strain of anthrax used in the attacks while working at the Army biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., from 1997 to 1999.

In August, after the suicide of another researcher who worked at the same Army laboratory, Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, the F.B.I. said it had concluded that Dr. Ivins alone had carried out the anthrax attacks, which killed 5 people and sickened 17 others.

The Justice Department then made public search warrant affidavits laying out circumstantial evidence against Dr. Ivins, including symptoms of mental illness, late hours in the laboratory before the mailings and genetic evidence linking the mailed anthrax to a supply in his laboratory. But no definitive evidence has tied Dr. Ivins directly to the letters or to the site of the mailings in Princeton, N.J., and many of his colleagues and friends have said they do not believe he committed the crime.

The Hatfill search warrant material shows how an accumulation of claims from acquaintances can cast an innocent person in a highly suspicious light, said Mark A. Grannis, a lawyer for Dr. Hatfill. As an example of how innocent details can be made to look suspicious, Mr. Grannis said Dr. Hatfill was taking Cipro, a widely prescribed antibiotic, after sinus surgery in 2001.

Search warrants, Mr. Grannis said, often use hearsay and unconfirmed information to convince a judge that a suspect is worthy of further investigation.

“Whether or not it was right for the government to rely on this kind of information to obtain a search warrant in 2002, we know in 2008 that Steven Hatfill had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks,” Mr. Grannis said.

The F.B.I. affidavits were used to obtain a search warrant in August 2002 for Dr. Hatfill’s apartment and a basement storage room in his building in Frederick, Md., as well as his car and a storage locker he rented in Ocala, Fla. The agency had conducted a search with Dr. Hatfill’s permission two months earlier, but it was considered inconclusive.

In searching Dr. Hatfill’s apartment, investigators seized biological equipment, glass laboratory slides, plastic tubing and a gun silencer, among other belongings, the documents say.

Dr. Hatfill was never charged in the anthrax case, but the searches and government leaks identifying him as a leading suspect drew widespread news coverage. He lost a teaching job at Louisiana State University after officials at the Justice Department, which was paying for the courses, objected to his employment. For months, F.B.I. surveillance teams followed Dr. Hatfill every time he left home.

Dr. Hatfill later sued the F.B.I. and the Justice Department for leaking information about him. A separate lawsuit he filed against The New York Times was dismissed and a lawsuit against Vanity Fair magazine was settled.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Two Portraits of a Bioterror Suspect

As FBI Paints Ivins as Killer, Friends Recall Him as Good, if Flawed

By Anne Hull, Marilyn W. Thompson and Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 28, 2008; A01


Two days before he was found unconscious at home, felled by a lethal dose of Tylenol and valium, microbiologist Bruce E. Ivins logged on to one of the "express computers" on the second floor of the library in downtown Frederick.


He typed in the name of a Web site devoted to the anthrax-mailings investigation, a perplexing, unsolved case that had dragged on for seven years. At 7:13 p.m., the computer connected to a page that included comments from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, who was confident that the case soon would be solved. "I tell you, we've made great progress in the investigation," he said.


Earlier that day, Ivins had been released from a psychiatric hospital, where the FBI had used the opportunity to obtain a DNA sample from him. Agents assigned to 24-hour surveillance followed him as he returned to his modest Cape Cod house outside the gates of Fort Detrick. Then Ivins "wasn't seen again," FBI documents say, until paramedics carried him out of his home unconscious.


The scientist who had spent his career studying lethal bacteria chose one of the simplest but most painful ways to die: acetaminophen poisoning, which causes liver damage and internal bleeding.


Some details of Ivins's final days emerged last week in a new release of FBI documents. The bureau found no suicide note, as it had hoped, and only sketchy evidence to bolster its case that Ivins was a diabolical and plotting criminal.


The new material emphasized the two irreconcilable versions of the man the FBI blames for the nation's most deadly act of biological terrorism.


The fatal spores used in the 2001 mailings came from a single flask in his custody, the FBI said, and for years Ivins displayed secretive behavior that fit the profile of a murderer who stuffed poison-laced letters into a Princeton, N.J., mailbox. He stalked members of a sorority, sent packages anonymously from out-of-town mailboxes, used false names in bizarre letters and e-mails, and took mysterious nocturnal car trips, sometimes rolling back his odometer.


But Ivins's defenders have cast enough doubt on the FBI's case that key members of Congress are demanding hearings. One recipient of an anthrax-laced letter, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), for the first time has publicly questioned the FBI, especially its conclusion that Ivins acted alone.


Friends say Ivins's psychiatric troubles intensified as the FBI hounded him, showing his children photos of victims and saying, "Your father did this." They knew Ivins as a father who cheered on his son's ball games and as a volunteer who cleaned out the muddied rescue vehicle used when two boys were swept away in a creek. Even in the face of the FBI's revelations -- the guns, the obsessions, the aliases -- Ivins's friends rationalized the details.


"For everything they want to pin on him . . . there is a counter to it, an alternate explanation," said Katie Carr, the former deputy commander at USAMRIID, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked for 27 years. "There are an awful lot of us in the community that surrounded Bruce who are not satisfied. Please prove it."


Ivins's attorney, Thomas M. DeGonia, likens his client to a diamond held up to the light. Turn it just so, and it could fit the FBI's idea of a sociopath. Turn it another way and see a flawed 62-year-old man. "The obsession with a sorority and the anthrax killings, these are two completely unrelated things," DeGonia said.



Brainy but Quirky


Growing up in Lebanon, Ohio, Ivins was a brainy kid with a quirky personality. A neighbor remembers Ivins inviting him into his garage one day to show off a stick of dynamite he was cutting in half with a surgical instrument. "He kind of grinned, with the scalpel in his hand, with his [other] hand on the dynamite," Robert Surface said.


Bruce's pharmacist father, Princeton graduate T. Randall Ivins, ran the local drugstore, and his mother, Mary Ivins, had a keen intellect and belonged to the Hill History Club. Ivins's parents attended the Presbyterian church and played bridge, but Ivins's older brother, Tom, said there was physical abuse in the house. Their father sometimes slept at the drugstore.


Ivins later said he felt "desolation" in high school, though most remember him as academically gifted if slightly awkward. The 1964 Lebanon High yearbook shows a skinny kid posing with the track team, all elbows and heavy black glasses.


A science standout, Ivins entered the University of Cincinnati in 1964 and earned his bachelor's and advanced degrees in microbiology. At 29, he married Diane Betsch, 20. They headed to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where Ivins had postdoctoral work.


"He was a very bright scientist and an awfully nice guy," said Priscilla B. Wyrick, then Ivins's professor at UNC and now the chair of the microbiology department at Quillen College of Medicine at East Tennessee State University. Wyrick had belonged to the sorority Chi Omega and remembers Ivins asking her about its rituals. "After about the second time he did it, I told him to buzz off," she said.


But Ivins's interest in another sorority, Kappa Kappa Gamma, frightened microbiologist Nancy L. Haigwood, a member who knew Ivins at UNC. Both ended up living in Gaithersburg, and one morning, Haigwood came out of the apartment she shared with her boyfriend and found "KKG" spray-painted on their Honda.


"Bruce figured out where I lived and what my fiance's car looked like," said Haigwood, now the director of the Oregon National Primate Research Center in Beaverton. She filed a police report and later confronted Ivins, who denied it.


By then Ivins was working at USAMRIID at Fort Detrick, in Frederick. He and his wife adopted twins, and Diane Ivins opened a day care at their home. She later led Frederick County Right To Life, participating in antiabortion rallies. The couple attended St. John the Evangelist Roman Catholic Church. They scrimped to buy a $140,000 house across the street from the Army installation. The slender Ivins often rode his bike to work, reminding one colleague of a scarecrow on wheels as he pedaled across the base.



A Respected Scientist


Within USAMRIID's high-security laboratories, Ivins was the go-to man for researchers probing anthrax disease. Ivins specialized in spore preparation, taking wet bacteria samples and culturing them in glass flasks. Ivins experimented on mice, rats, golden guinea pigs and monkeys, first injecting the animals with test vaccines and then blasting them with anthrax. After a few days, he counted bodies.


His research earned scientific notice, and the Pentagon awarded him its highest civilian honor in 2002 for helping solve a problem that had delayed production of the anthrax vaccine used to inoculate U.S. troops. The FBI suggested that Ivins's determination to promote the importance of the vaccine may have been a motive in sending the letters.


Ivins also worked to help develop vaccines offering broader protections. Partly through his efforts, the Army secured two patents that could aid in the production of a vaccine then under development. Ivins stood to gain some money from the patent rights, but hardly a financial bonanza.


"This was a guy who drove an older car with bare tires, who wore threadbare clothes. He was not in this for money," said another former supervisor, Jeffrey J. Adamovicz.


Although his work was going well, by 2000 Ivins was seeing a psychiatrist who prescribed for him the anti-depressant Celexa. The drug brought little relief. "I get incredible paranoid delusional thoughts at times, and there's nothing I can do until they go away, either by themselves or with drugs," he wrote in an e-mail.


That summer, Ivins attended weekly therapy sessions at Comprehensive Counseling Associates in Frederick, telling a counselor of his plans to travel out of town to watch a young woman play soccer. If she lost, Ivins said, he would poison her, according to the counselor, who spoke to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity. "It was not a crime of impulse," the counselor said. "It was planned with cunning." The counselor notified authorities, who said nothing could be done without the intended victim's last name or address.


By mutual agreement, Ivins stopped seeing the counselor, whom he felt he could no longer trust. He cryptically wrote a friend, saying that his counselor "wanted to get me put in jail."


He also was using out-of-town mailboxes to anonymously send gifts and cards to someone in another city. He apparently made an 11-hour round-trip one night to leave a package for that person. When the FBI later questioned him, he explained that he liked taking mindless drives.


Ivins used a variety of names and e-mail addresses -- "jimmyflathead" was one -- and he rented a postal box under the name Carl Scandella. That was the name of Nancy Haigwood's husband -- her boyfriend at the time of the car vandalism.



Clues, and Holes, in the Case


The anthrax letters mailed in the fall of 2001 were distinguished by childlike block handwriting that warned: "We have this anthrax. You die now. . . . Death to America. Death to Israel." Though the FBI did not match Ivins's handwriting to that in the letters, agents were struck by phrasing in an e-mail he sent Sept. 26, after the first letters were mailed: "Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and saran gas" and have "just decreed death to all Jews and all Americans."


Ivins spent several late nights in the lab alone before the mailings. The FBI called the nighttime hours unusual, although his friends said they were not. Ivins later told agents he was merely escaping problems at home. He seemed fine that fall when he enrolled in an American Red Cross disaster-relief course with Peggy Magnanelli, a fellow volunteer who remembered how Ivins later stepped up to help Hurricane Katrina evacuees.


Ivins's professional skills were such that the FBI took him into its confidence as it analyzed the powder contained in a letter to Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). He was kept informed as the bureau began a global quest to identify the distinctive genetic fingerprint of the bacteria packed into the mailings.


Eventually, it all came down to a single flask kept in Ivins's custody. In 1997, he had received anthrax spores prepared at Dugway Proving Ground, an Army test facility in Utah. Ivins cultured the Dugway spores, mixed them with his own and stored the unique concoction in a flask about the size of a half-pint of milk.


He labeled it "Dugway 97," then at some point added the name RMR 1029, which stands for "Reference Material Request." A prosecutor later called it the "murder weapon" in the anthrax case.


The FBI concluded that Ivins was the sole culprit in the mailings, growing the distinctive material in his lab, packing it into pre-stamped envelopes bought in Frederick and secretly driving six hours round-trip to Princeton, N.J., to mail them. Of special note, the bureau said, was the fact that the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority had an office on the same street as the Princeton mailbox.


But the case had holes. No one had spotted Ivins in Princeton, and hair samples taken from the Nassau Street mailbox did not match his DNA. Moreover, Ivins was not the only person with access to RMR 1029. The FBI at first said about 100 people had access, but that number multiplied with the finding that Ivins had kept the flask in two different USAMRIID buildings, each with its own lab technicians and cleaning crews.


The FBI also made the case that Ivins, once so trusted, had tried to deceive investigators. When scientists were asked to give the FBI bacterial samples from their labs, he did not follow protocol. His second sample, the FBI later said, had been doctored.


By then, it was 2007. Ivins had worked without incident among pathogens for five years after the anthrax mailings.


Late last year, the circle was closing around Ivins. In November, the FBI searched his property, with his family sequestered at a hotel. Agents seized a Glock 34, a Glock 27 and a Beretta pistol, as well as directions to the home of a female former co-worker.


The lab revoked his access to pathogens. He kept office hours but was mixing anti-anxiety drugs with sleeping pills and alcohol. Someone alerted a fellow scientist who was in a 12-step recovery program that Ivins needed help. This spring, Ivins did two stints in rehab. His wife visited often.


This year, the FBI met with Ivins three times, documents say, including once in early June as prosecutors prepared to indict him. Out of the blue, Ivins contacted his counselor from 2000 to ask if he could obtain his patient records. The counselor no longer worked at Comprehensive Counseling Associates but said if the records still existed, they would be at the office.


Ivins, who tried to implicate several of his colleagues, e-mailed himself at an oddly named address to say that he was doing his own investigation and "should have been a private eye!"



A Pledge of Violence


On July 9, Ivins announced in group therapy that he was a suspect in the anthrax case. He vowed to kill co-workers who had wronged him. The account of this session came from Jean C. Duley, then a clinic addiction specialist. The next morning, Duley called Frederick police and later went to court to get a restraining order.

Ivins was taken into custody and sent to a Sheppard Pratt psychiatric hospital for evaluation. His house was again searched; seized were hundreds of rounds of ammunition, homemade body armor, a bulletproof vest and a handwritten note about Duley. Also found was a copy of "A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines," a novel based on the lives of Alan Turing and Kurt Godel, two towering figures of modern logic. Both men died in bizarre suicides, Godel in Princeton in 1978 from starvation and Turing, a Princeton alumnus, of cyanide poisoning in 1954 after applying the poison to an apple.


The trove of documents released since Ivins's suicide has added to the image seen by his counselors: a madman, driven by obsessions. He tracked members of Kappa Kappa Gamma and showed his command of the sorority's secrets in entries on Wikipedia. He became obsessed with Kathryn Price, a winner of "The Mole" television reality show, and wrote strange e-mails to her under a phony name, Cindy Wood.


"Family and friends deserve to know he had two sides," one of his counselors said. "In all my years of counseling, I never felt scared, except by this person."


But even after his death, the FBI acknowledged that the central forensic evidence in its case against Ivins left room for doubt. "There's always going to be a spore on the grassy knoll," said Vahid Majidi of the bureau's weapons of mass destruction directorate.


Days after his death, Ivins's family and friends prepared for a memorial service that drew so many people to the small Fort Detrick chapel that overflow chairs were hustled in by Army personnel. One weeping colonel after another praised Ivins's devotion to work and family, while co-workers recalled his endearing habits -- such as Tupperware lunches of lima beans and Jell-O.


At Ivins's house nearby, dead leaves covered the small yard where agents had come again to rummage through trash. They found notes Ivins wrote in the psychiatric hospital detailing his anxieties, including his fear of incarceration. They carted away the scraps of paper to log as evidence, passing a wooden shed with peeling paint where they had also searched for clues. The scientist's blue Saturn sat in the driveway, empty.


Staff researcher Julie Tate and staff writer Amy Goldstein contributed to this report.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Suspicions Continue In Anthrax Case



WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the of Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he does not believe that Dr. 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.


Leahy did not say why he believed Ivins had help and he also cast doubt that the Army scientist was the attacker in the first place.


"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," 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."


Mueller did not directly contradict Leahy, saying "I understand that concern."


Still, Mueller maintained the Justice Department's view that 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," Mueller told 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 FBI have yet to close the case on the "Amerithrax" investigation after declaring Ivins its only suspect last month. Ivins killed himself in July after learning that prosecutors were preparing to indict him.


Republicans shared 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 Ivins that has been made public. In a testy exchange with 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. 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?" 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?"


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," 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, Kearney said.


Sitting in the front row of the audience at the Senate hearing was Dr. 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 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 Mueller on how the FBI could have focused on Hatfill for years when investigators as early as 2002 had lab records showing Ivins was conducting late-night research in the days immediately before the deadly letters were mailed.


"Shouldn't the FBI apologize to Dr. Hatfill?" Grassley asked. "Please explain how chasing an innocent man for four years was not a mistake, as you said it was not a mistake."


Mueller said the FBI investigators acted appropriately throughout the case — based on the information they had at any given time.


Hatfill, smiling, left the hearing after Grassley's questions.



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Scientist concedes 'honest mistake' about weaponized anthrax


Peter B. Jahrling
, who aided the federal probe of the 2001 mailings, says he erred when he told White House officials that material he examined probably had been altered to make it more deadly.

By David Willman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 17, 2008

WASHINGTON
-- An acclaimed government scientist who assisted the federal investigation of the 2001 anthrax mailings said Tuesday that he erred seven years ago when he told top Bush administration officials that material he examined probably had been altered to make it more deadly.


The scientist, Peter B. Jahrling, had observed anthrax spores with the aid of an electron microscope at the government's biological warfare research facility at Ft. Detrick, Md.


On Oct. 24, 2001, Jahrling was summoned to the White House after reporting to his superiors what he believed to be signs that silicon had been added to anthrax recovered from a letter addressed to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).


The presence of silicon was viewed with alarm because the material, if artificially added to the anthrax, would make it more buoyant in air and more capable of penetrating deeply into the lungs.


"I believe I made an honest mistake," Jahrling said in response to questions e-mailed to him for this article, adding that he had been "overly impressed" by what he thought he saw under the microscope.


"I should never have ventured into this area," said Jahrling, who is a virologist, referring to his analysis of the anthrax, which is a bacterium. Jahrling's initial analysis -- and his briefing of officials at the White House -- was first detailed in a 2002 book by bestselling author Richard Preston.


Although Jahrling was careful in 2001 not to implicate Iraq or any other regime in the mailings, others used his analysis to allege that the silicon perhaps linked the letters to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.


Inhaled anthrax can kill at a rate of 80% to 90% unless patients are treated quickly with an antibiotic.


Jahrling
's comments Tuesday came soon after a congressional hearing at which FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III announced that he was arranging for an outside review of scientific findings that helped the bureau conclude that another scientist at Ft. Detrick, Bruce E. Ivins, perpetrated the deadly mailings. The review is to be overseen by the National Academy of Sciences, Mueller said.


FBI
scientists and outside experts hired by the bureau to analyze the anthrax recovered from the mailings announced Aug. 18 that although they had found silicon, it occurred within the spores naturally and was not added.


In challenging those experts, one journalist reminded them that Jahrling, among other scientists, had concluded otherwise.


Some critics of the FBI investigation have asserted that Ivins lacked the skills to have "weaponized" the anthrax with any additive that enhanced its virulence.


At Tuesday's hearing, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), pressed Mueller anew about how the silicon got into the spores.


After being informed of the events at the hearing, Jahrling renounced his earlier analysis.


"In retrospect," Jahrling said, "I believe I was mistaken and defer to the experts."


Ivins
, 62, a civilian bacteriologist for the Army, died July 29 after ingesting a massive dose of prescription Tylenol 3.


Attorneys Ivins had hired to defend him against criminal charges being prepared by the Justice Department have said that they would have won his acquittal if the case had gone to trial.


In 2001, Jahrling briefed a roomful of officials at the White House, including Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, Mueller and Tom Ridge, President Bush's secretary of Homeland Security.


The next day, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined "Additive Made Spores Deadlier" that reported:


"The presence of the high-grade additive was confirmed for the first time yesterday by a government source familiar with the ongoing studies, which are being conducted by scientists" at Ft. Detrick.


The article said that the United States, the former Soviet Union and Iraq were "the only three nations known to have developed the kind of additives that enable anthrax spores to remain suspended in the air, making them more easily inhaled" and more deadly.


At the time, Jahrling was employed as the senior civilian scientist at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, within Ft. Detrick.


Jahrling
is a past winner of the Secretary of Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Award.


Michael P. Kortan
, a spokesman for Mueller, said after the congressional hearing that the FBI was seeking the outside review while maintaining "full confidence in our scientific approach."


"Consideration of an outside review began before any public disclosure of the scientific aspects of the investigation," Kortan said.


david.willman@latimes.com

Times researcher Janet Lundblad in Los Angeles contributed to this report.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

News Media, Their Lying Sources And Anthrax

This is a re-post: The questions posed here, have still not been answered to my satisfaction. Since I am the main anthrax questioner among posters at I.U. I would like to seriously urge all independents and everyone else who reads this, to call their own Senators and Congressman, as well as Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey who wants the Select Committee on Intelligence to hold Hearings.


I have been focused on anthrax for quite some time. What spurred my interest, other than the obvious; the uneasiness to fear to terror it caused many more in the nation than the actual 9/11 attacks themselves? Here's what made me grow more and more suspicious of the official story:


1) When it was reported that the weaponized anthrax, which was sent to only Democrats and Tom Brokaw, came from the U.S. Army bioweapons lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland and that the strain of anthrax , the Ames strain, was indigenous to the U.S, as in Ames Iowa from wince it came . Big Red Flag (Clearly if Saddam was responsible, the story that McCain, Lieberman and some unknown sources of ABC news, were trying to peddle, he got the horrible stuff from our own government, probably during the Reagan/Bush years when our government, unbekownst to the people, was busy playing both sides of the horrible Iran/Iraq war that went on for 10 years and killed untold, hundreds of thousands of people.) Funny thing about that, though. Saddam has never, not once, been publicly accused of using anthrax as a WMD against anyone, until it showed up in letters to Democrats and Tom Brokaw. Wonder what Saddam had against Democrats and Tom Brokaw, I ask in complete jest. Of course that story never really flew for most of us... well, anywhere except among our fellow countrymen who get their news and opinions strictly from the right-wing echo chamber.


2) When it was learned that the anthrax came from our own lab, the anthrax attacks seemed to disappear from national discourse, at least in the ACNM. I can never recall a time when George Bush or Dick Cheney even mentioned the anthrax attacks, even when they could not utter a paragraph in which 9/11 was not mentioned. Terrorist attacks are terrorist attacks, it seems to me. Who cares where the attacks come from? These attacks killed several people, injured others to a degree which prevents them from ever having a normal life again. It scared the Beejeebus out of Americans everywhere, making them hesitant to go to their own mail boxes let alone allow their kids to bring in the mail.


3) Then Steven Hatfield became a "person of interest," as was announced breathlessly by John Ashcroft, and suddenly the DOJ was leaking like a sieve about this man. We now know that the American taxpayers have since had to pay millions because the Bush DOJ, under Ashcroft, ruined this man's life and career.

Think about it? How many other cases like this have any of us seen in our lifetime? It is extremely difficult to sue a state government, let alone the federal government, and it should be. Because the people being sued are not the people who ruined life and career, but we, the people. So, why this exorbitant amount of money, 5 million and change? Could well be hush money? Maybe Hatfield knows too much and is too well-known, now, to wind up dead with a minor obit. in the local paper. Of course, I have no idea what Hatfield's attorney's fess were, but his lawyer earned every damn dime of it, and the American people should be grateful to him as well. He stopped a fellow citizen from being rail-roaded and warned Americans that this government could not be trusted on the anthrax matter.


3) More silence on anthrax, for years; not a word, with the notable exception of endless posts on the Internet from a "person if interest" to me (more on her later). The attacks are never mentioned. No serious digging by the ACNM, and by this time there had to be suspicions in the minds of many. It is as if the attacks never happened. We must have all dreamed it, right?

By this time, I was suspicious as hell, so I went looking for everything I could find about anthrax and the attacks.

4) I find that White House staffers, including those of Dick Cheney, as well as Cheney, himself, began taking Cipro on the evening of 9/11, long before anyone had even been exposed to anthrax to anyone else's knowledge. Apparently, not even Tom Ridge's, as he was busy disavowing the very idea that a reporter who died in Florida was the victim of terrorism. He continued to deny it, until there was no longer any denying it. Remember, there was no Department of Homeland Security in those days. Bush just pulled Ridge in to be his adviser on the matter of "homeland security." Odd choice, I have always thought. Ridge was a governor, just as Bush had been, with no real counter-terrorism experience. Meanwhile, the real counter-terrorism and non-proliferation experts were being weeded out of the government, faster than one can say "Osama bin Forgotten." They were the ones, like Richard Clarke, who had warned the administration that a big terrorist attack was very likely and, probably, it would be on American soil. The administration knew. There is simply no way around it.


Let me be clear here, I did not get this startling information from any site I would consider left-wing, but from none other than Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch (Remember Larry Klayman from the days of Bill Clinton and the perjury charge. He was all over the media, opining away about just how evil Clinton was), who, at the time, was going to bat for postal workers who had never been so much such as warned of the possibility of anthrax attacks, let alone given precautions they could use to protect themselves in case of such an attack. Congress wasn't warned either, to my knowledge. All of Judicial Watch's questions have gone completely ignored by the White House, of course.


What physician prescribed Cipro for White House staffers and Cheney? This is not over the over-the-counter medication and still isn't. If no Physician prescribed it, where did they get that much Cipro? Who makes Cipro? Did the Department of Defense have a ready stockpile of this powerful, broad spectrum antibiotic? Who gave the order for White House staffers to take this medication which, by the way, is not without side-effects, some of them pretty damned unpleasant?

That's really all it took for me, given the lies out of this administration of which I was already quite sure.


I have those same doubts and suspicions today. Poor old Dr. Ivins. Just another kook, a lone gunman type.


It is simply amazing to me what the mentally unbalanced can accomplish that the big, scary Soviet Union could not accomplish in over a century of cold war: JFK, RFK, Reagan and now anthrax attacks?

On another, but connected topic, ABC must tell the people who their sources were on the attacks coming, somehow, from Saddam. These people lied to the American people through ABC and probably helped build support for war crimes by this appalling administration.

Call ABC News!!! Tell them that their disinfomation on this topic is simply not tolerable in a Democracy and they need to tell us who misinformed them.

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)


The death of government scientist Bruce Ivins has generated far more questions about the anthrax attacks than it has answered. I want to return to the role the establishment media played in obfuscating the anthrax investigation for so long and, at times, aiding in what was clearly the deliberate deceit on the part of Government sources. This is yet another case where the establishment media possesses -- yet steadfastly conceals -- some of the most critical facts about what the Government has done, and insists on protecting the wrongdoers. Obtaining these answers from these media outlets is as important as obtaining them from the Government. Writing about ABC's dissemination of the false Iraq/anthrax story, The New Republic's Dayo Olopade wrote yesterday: "Pressure on ABC to out their sources should be swift and sustained."


The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum argued yesterday that despite the need for journalists to use confidential sources, "the profession -- and the rest of us -- [are] better off if sources know that they run the risk of being unmasked if their mendacity is egregious enough to become newsworthy in its own right." Drum added: "I'd say that part of [Ross'] re-reporting ought to include a full explanation of exactly who was peddling the bentonite lie in the first place, and why they were doing it." Nonetheless, Drum said: "In practice, most journalists refuse to identify their sources under any circumstances at all, even when it's clear that those sources deliberately lied to them."


Drum is right that it is unusual for journalists to out their "sources" even when they are exploiting the confidentiality pledge to disseminate lies to the public, but such outing is by no means unprecedented. Last year, when I first wrote about ABC's broadcasting of this false Saddam/anthrax story, I spoke with numerous experts in "journalistic ethics," such as they are, and all of them -- journalists, Journalism Professors, and media critics alike -- agreed that while the obligation of source confidentiality is close to absolute, it does not extend to a source who deliberately exploits confidentiality to disseminate lies to the public. Under those circumstances, it's axiomatic in journalistic ethics that a reporter is not only permitted, but required, to disclose the identity of the source who purposely used the reporter to spread lies.


There are examples where even large media outlets have followed that principle. Back in 1987, Oliver North was justifying his having lied to Congress about the Iran-contra program by complaining that Congress couldn't be trusted with National Security secrets. When asked at a Senate hearing for an example, North cited what he claimed were Congressional leaks to Newsweek about key details of a U.S. military operation to intercept an Egyptian plane carrying the men believed to be the hijackers of the Achille Lauro cruise ship.


But North was lying. It was North himself -- not Congress -- who had leaked details of that operation to Newsweek. And Newsweek, knowing that North was blatantly lying to the public by blaming Congress for leaks for which North himself was actually responsible, outed North as its source. As this 1987 New York Times article reported:


In its latest issue, Newsweek noted that Colonel North testified at the Iran-contra hearings that "a number of members of Congress" made revelations about the Achille Lauro operation "that very seriously compromised our intelligence activities."


"But the colonel did not mention," the Newsweek article continued, "that details of the interception, first published in a Newsweek cover story, were leaked by none other than Colonel North himself."



The Newsweek reporter who outed North was Jonathan Alter, who at the time was that magazine's media critic. Here is what Alter wrote, in 2003, about why he did so:

The year was 1987 and Oliver North was testifying before a congressional committee investigating the Iran-contra affair. As I sat listening to him in the Senate Caucus Room, I couldn't believe my ears. North was talking about the 1985 apprehension of Arab terrorists who had tossed an elderly Jewish man in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, over the side of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. The already famous Marine colonel was accusing members of Congress of being untrustworthy because they revealed the military details of that capture. I knew that North was shamelessly accusing other people of leaking something that he, in fact, had leaked himself -- not to me, but to other reporters. He was using confidentiality as a weapon. I decided to blow the whistle in NEWSWEEK and identify him as the source. This didn't exactly make me Mr. Popularity with my colleagues or with North, who threatened to sue. But I would do it all over again.


Alter added: "The whole game of reporters and their confidential sources has gone so far in Washington that too many of us have forgotten our first obligation. It's not to the Oliver Norths of the world and the reporters protecting them. It's to readers and viewers and, yes, to the truth."


About that incident, Alter emphasized to me this morning in an email that he was not outing his own source, but another Newsweek reporter's source, but nonetheless told me: "Many other reporters were mad at me but some commentators rightly pointed out that some values -- the obligation of reporters to their readers -- superseded the reporter-source relationship, and that if you used that relationship as a cover for lying, you broke the implicit contract." That is exactly what ABC News' "bentonite" sources did in the anthrax case -- "used that relationship as a cover for lying" and thus "broke the implicit contract." ABC News is not only permitted, but obligated, to reveal to the public who did that.


In a 1987 article ambivalently discussing Alter's actions, Time's Laurence Zuckerman wrote:


But the widespread practice of granting sources anonymity has dangers of its own. It allows officials to manipulate the press without being held accountable. North's charge that Congress was responsible for leaks about the Libyan raid and the Achille Lauro had serious policy implications. It was also wrong; most stories about both events, including TIME's cover just before the Libyan raid, were based on Administration sources. Says Michael Gartner, editor of the Louisville Courier-Journal: "In this instance, where the source publicly accuses someone else of leaking a story for devious purposes, it's incumbent upon you to set the record straight."


Everette Dennis, executive director of New York's Gannett Center for Media Studies, agrees. "The standard ought always to be the public interest," he says.


Whoever fed ABC News the false "bentonite" stories weren't "sources" in any meaningful sense; they used ABC to disseminate to the public highly significant, and very consequential, lies. What possible justification is there for ABC to continue to protect the identity of those who deliberately foisted on the public such a destructive fraud?

* * * * *


The North/Newsweek episode was 20 years ago. Does anyone doubt that the relationship between the establishment media and the Government has changed significantly, become far less adversarial and far more cooperative, so that the media now serves to advance the Government's interest far more than it checks or undermines it? That the media is now so frequently a tool used by Government wrongdoers, rather than a check against them, only heightens the need for the media to reveal the identity of those who use them to spread deliberate lies or to break the law.


There are certainly cases -- critically important cases -- where reporters protect the anonymity of sources who blow the whistle on Government wrongdoing -- those who told Dana Priest about the CIA's black sites, or who told Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau about the illegal NSA spying program. With reporting of that kind, source confidentiality is indispensable, particularly in an age where so much of what our Government does is shrouded in total secrecy, Congress couldn't be more impotent in uncovering what has happened, and whistle-blowers who anonymously disclose Government wrongdoing to reporters have become one of our only means for uncovering serious Government misconduct.


But at least as frequently, if not more so, source confidentiality is used by reporters -- as it was in the Plame case, and in the ABC anthrax reporting -- to protect and conceal the identity of Government wrongdoers, not to uncover Government wrongdoing. I defy anyone to go and read basic accounts of what the Government and media jointly did to destroy Steven Hatfill's life and then argue that such corrupt and dangerous Government-media cooperation is entitled to protection from exposure. Here's a summary of what the Government and media did from a brief filed by Hatfill in his lawsuit (.pdf) against the Government:


All of that leaking was illegal, and it destroyed the life of a completely innocent man. What possible rationale is there for protecting that process, allowing reporters to protect the government lawbreakers who used them?


Hatfill's lawyer, Mark Grannis, obviously and understandably quite disillusioned by how the establishment media works in light of its eager dissemination of government lies about his client, followed by vigorous efforts to protect -- rather than expose -- the responsible government officials, wrote an Op-Ed in the Wall St. Journal inveighing against the proposed new federal shield law as follows:


How can the arguments and behavior of journalists in a case such as this be reconciled with the profession's self-image as the public watchdog, bringing accountability to government? The public officials who leaked investigative information to [USA Today reporter Toni] Locy broke the law, ruined an innocent man, and violated the public trust. Shouldn't our watchdog bark or something?


The leakers should be fired, prosecuted, or both -- and reporters who care about government accountability should be racing each other to tell us who these miscreants are. The fact that they shut their mouths tight and run the other way suggests that the image of reporter-as-watchdog does not reflect the current place of journalism in society, whatever may have been true in the past.


Third, if the law prevents courts from ordering reporters to identify anonymous sources, what will prevent government officials from using the private information they keep on us for personal or political score-settling? What will prevent them from simply lying? What will prevent reporters from inventing anonymous sources who don't actually exist?


Fourth, how is a senator who votes for a shield law to convince his constituents that it is anything but a special favor for an influential lobby? . . . . Similarly, when the Washington Post editorialized in favor of a shield law just days earlier, its readers heaped scorn on the idea. One wrote that "if a shield law is put in place, irresponsible journalists can print anything and get away with destroying lives. There has to be some sort of checks and balances here" . . . .


Ideally journalists would ask these questions themselves. But it's not an ideal world. That's why they occasionally need to be held accountable, too.



That is really the critical point here. Source confidentiality is premised on a model of journalism where the media is adversarial to the Government, and safeguarding the anonymity of sources is the only way to find out what the Government is doing. But these days, so frequently, the media serves as an arm of the Government -- the Government uses the establishment media to disseminate propaganda and outright lies to the public (Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, Saddam's aluminum tubes) or even uses leaks to the media to commit crimes (as it did in the Plame case). When the journalists who are used to spread these lies or commit these crimes then conceal who it is who has done such things, they are complicit in the Government wrongdoing, key enablers of it.


By endorsing the sanctity of that Government-media relationship through shield laws and the like (which I've always supported in the past), it's actually -- perversely -- bestowing the Government with yet another tool to shield its misconduct from the public. Because the establishment media so frequently now serves as a tool used by the Government to amplify its false claims and promote its agenda, rather than as a watchdog against it, increasing the Government and media's power to keep that relationship secret is to empower the Government even further -- the exact opposite of what source confidentiality is intended to achieve [and, indeed, proposed federal shield laws provide large exceptions for national security leaks, which means that such a law would still allow the Governments to try to invade, and courts to destroy, the good kind of confidentiality (e.g., the CIA black sites and NSA leaks) while protecting the bad kind (where the Government uses the media to spread lies and other disinformation)].

* * * * *


The unanswered questions in the anthrax case are literally too numerous to chronicle. It is so vital to emphasize that not a shred of evidence has yet been presented that the now-deceased Bruce Ivins played any role in the anthrax attacks, let alone that he was the sole or even primary culprit. Nonetheless, just as they did with Steven Hatfill, the media (with some notable and important exceptions) are reporting this case as though the matter is resolved.


Given the significance of the anthrax attacks, it would be unconscionable for there to be anything other than a full-scale Congressional or independent investigation -- with a full airing of all the facts -- regarding everything that happened here. Those issues should include exploration of the following questions, many of which might well have perfectly reasonable and benign explanations, and some of which may not, but until there is a full airing, it will necessarily be the case -- and it should be the case -- that this episode will only serve to further erode whatever lingering trust there is in media and government institutions:


  • Why were White House aides given cipro weeks before the anthrax attacks, and why "on the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, [did] the White House Medical Office dispense[] Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David"? [Washington Post, 10/23/2001];
  • Why, if Cheney was given cipro on the night of the 9/11 attacks, was he allegedly "convinced that he had been subjected to a lethal dose of anthrax" on October 18, and that this fear is what led him to seek refuge in "undisclosed locations" and thereafter support an array of hard-line tactics against suspected terrorists? [Jane Mayer, The Dark Side, 2008];
  • Which "high government official" told Richard Cohen to take cipro prior to the anthrax attacks (it wasn't a "source" who did so, since Cohen didn't write about it and apparently never intended to; it was just someone high up in Government passing along a helpful tip to a media friend) [Richard Cohen, Slate, March 18, 2008];
  • Did the FBI meaningfully investigate who sent an anonymous letter to the FBI after the anthrax letters were sent, but before they were made public, accusing a former Fort Detrick scientist -- the Arab-American Ayaad Assaad -- of being a "potential biological terrorist," after Assaad was forced out of Fort Detrick by a group of USAMRIID bioweapons researchers who had exhibited extreme anti-Arab animus? [Laura Rozen, Salon, 1/26/2002];
  • Why did the FBI gives its consent in October, 2001 for the remaining samples of the Ames anthrax strain to be destroyed, thereby losing crucial "genetic clues valuable to the criminal inquiry"? [San Francisco Chronicle, 11/9/2001];
  • If -- as was publicly disclosed as early as 2004 -- Bruce Ivins' behavior in 2001 and 2002 in conducting unauthorized tests on anthrax residue was so suspicious, why was he allowed to remain with access to the nation's most dangerous toxins for many years after, and why wasn't he a top suspect much earlier? [USA Today, 10/13/2004];
  • If it's really the case -- as principal Ivins antagonist Jean Duley claims -- that Ivins, as far back as 2000, had "actually attempted to murder several other people, [including] through poisoning" and had threatened to kill his co-workers at his Fort Detrick lab, then why did he continue to maintain clearance to work on biological weapons, and why are his co-workers and friends, with virtual unanimity, insisting that he never displayed any behavior suggestive of being the anthrax attacker? [Washington Post, August 3, 2008];
  • What was John McCain referencing when he went on national television in October, 2001 and claimed "there is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may -- and I emphasize may -- have come from Iraq"? [Late Show with David Letterman, 10/18/2001];
  • What was Joe Lieberman's basis for stating on national television, three days after McCain's Letterman appearance and in the midst of advocating a U.S. attack on Iraq, that the anthrax was so complex and potent that "there's either a significant amount of money behind this, or this is state-sponsored, or this is stuff that was stolen from the former Soviet program"? [Meet the Press, 10/21/2001];
  • What did Pat Leahy mean when he said the following in a September, 2007 interview:
    Leahy: What I want to know -- I have a theory. But what I want to know is why me, why Tom Daschle, why Tom Brokaw?

    VDB: Right. That all fits into the profile of a kind of hard-core and obviously insane ideologue on the far Right, somebody who would fixate on especially Tom Daschle, who at that point was the target of daily, vitriolic attacks on Right-wing talk radio.

    Leahy: [Slowly, with a little shake of the head] I don't think it’s somebody insane. I'd accept everything else you said. But I don’t think it's somebody insane. And I think there are people within our government -- certainly from the source of it -- who know where it came from. [Taps the table to let that settle in] And these people may not have had anything to do with it, but they certainly know where it came from.

    [Vermont Daily Briefing, 9/5/2007];
  • Who were the "four separate and well-placed sources" who told ABC News, falsely, that tests conducted at Fort Detrick had found the presence of bentonite in the anthrax sent to Tom Daschle, causing ABC News to aggressively link the attacks to Iraq for five straight days in October, 2001? [Salon, 4/9/2007];
  • Who was responsible for the numerous leaks even before the ABC News bentonite reports linking the anthrax attacks to Iraq? [The Guardian; 10/14/2001; Wall St. Journal Editorial, 10/15/2001 ("Is Iraq unleashing biological weapons on America?"); CNN, 10/15/2001].

There are plenty of other similar questions. As I said, many of these events could have perfectly reasonable explanations, ranging from significant ineptitude in the FBI investigation to acute caution on the part of the White House in ordering cipro. But given the magnitude of this episode, the far-from-convincing case made against Ivins, and the way in which -- even by the most generous account -- the Government and media's conduct have been driven by extreme unreliability and chronic errors, who could argue against a very sweeping and serious Congressional investigation -- or a genuinely independent investigative body -- devoted to disclosing all of the facts here, along the lines of what the 9/11 Commission was charged with doing?


Congressman Rush Holt, whose Central New Jersey district contained the mail box where at least some of the anthrax letters were mailed, issued a statement on Friday pointing out that "[w]hat we learn will not change the fact that this has been a poorly-handled investigation that has lasted six years and already has resulted in a trail of embarrassment and personal tragedy." On the same day, Rep. Holt wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller requesting that if the FBI closes the investigation, then Mueller appear at a hearing before the House Committee on Appropriations' Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, which Holt chairs, in order to answer questions about the FBI's investigation.


Perhaps that is the appropriate venue for full-scale hearings into these questions. Any investigative body ought to be endowed with far-reaching subpoena power and should use it, and should further be committed to full public disclosure of all the facts. The anthrax attacks were the first lethal biological attack on the United States. The attacker(s) sought falsely to link the anthrax to Muslim extremists, as did numerous "sources" who fed the media with such claims. The U.S. Government itself claims that the attacks came from a U.S. Army research facility, perpetrated by a U.S. Government scientist. Excluding (arguably) only the 9/11 attack itself, the consequences of the anthrax attacks were as significant as anything that has happened in this country in the last decade. Full disclosure of all key facts -- and we have nothing of the kind right now -- is indisputably vital.

UPDATE: In comments, Jestaplero, a New York state prosecutor, argues that it's highly likely that Brian Ross' "bentonite" sources are material witnesses who committed obstruction of justice (since the false Iraq story came from the same lab where the attacks originated and thus was designed to distract investigators away from the true culprits), and Ross could easily be compelled to disclose those sources for that reason alone (just as Judy Miller was compelled to disclose her sources in the Plame case).

UPDATE II: See this very persuasive statement from Dr. Alan Pearson, Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, as to all the unanswered questions that remain, and why it is so imperative that the investigation into the anthrax attacks continue (h/t Plutonium Page).

UPDATE III: I'll be on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman tomorrow at 8:10 a.m. EST to discuss these anthrax issues. Local listings and live audio/video feed are here.

UPDATE IV: The New Republic's John Judis reports that he was present at a two-day CIA conference for reporters in 2003, shortly before the attack on Iraq, and learned that various factions in the CIA were still, even as of that time, pushing the claim that Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attacks. Judis notes -- and several people have distorted this point with regard to my broader argument about ABC's Iraq/anthrax story -- that this doesn't mean that "the Bush administration" as a collective, coordinated entity was pushing the false anthrax/Iraq link, but rather, "that there was a network [of] people who were promoting a theory about anthrax that helped make the case for war." Precisely. Judis says of the Iraq/anthrax claim that "there are too many echoes of Niger and uranium," and for that reason, he "join[s] those who believe that some kind of Congressional investigation is in order."


-- Glenn Greenwald


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.