I hope this thing blows wide open.

Wow. The propaganda was thick on this one.

Just wow.

Oopsy.

Bbbbut.... WMD! It ARE IN EYERACK!

No terrorism in the U.S. since 9/11?

My one question is why? Was this guy just some ideologue that wanted to ratchet up the fear a little more, or wanted the US to invade Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations? I want to know why he did it, and more importantly I want to know if he acted alone.

Code_Archeologist:

I want to know why he did it ....

Good luck with that. I fail to fully fathom Freepers.

/so what if I did go there? Considering his targets we have a candidate for a new Libs Libs Libs image

Code_Archeologist: Was this guy just some ideologue that wanted to ratchet up the fear a little more, or wanted the US to invade Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations?

Yup. That's it.

It was just this one guy. Kooky, really.

I mean, that whole part about the Administration and the press going full court on the Iraq connection is just, well, an unfortunate result of the one, lone kook who acted by himself, or in other words, alone.

How convenient that the guy just offed himself, huh?

4 independent sources

Skleenar: It was just this one guy. Kooky, really.

That begs the question: "why was a person who was obviously mentally unstable allowed anywhere near biological/chemical weapons?"

Code_Archeologist: My one question is why? Was this guy just some ideologue that wanted to ratchet up the fear a little more, or wanted the US to invade Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations? I want to know why he did it, and more importantly I want to know if he acted alone.

bronyaur1: How convenient that the guy just offed himself, huh?

With Tylenol II, no less.

2wolves: No terrorism in the U.S. since 9/11?

I haven't been robbed since I bought a purple rock, either. I recommend buying a purple rock to everyone.

How convenient that the anthrax ended up going to Democrats, or to the liberal media, who might have opposed a war with Iraq until the "learned" that Iraq was the source of the anthrax.

Why, some of them even voted for the war before they voted against it.

The plot sickens...

Whacko fundamentalist nutjob scientist tries to goad us into war in the middle east to save israel. Color me not surprised.

Why do news people protect sources that lie to them and destroy their reputation?

Yeah, ok. Suuuure..it was just this one guy. Who's dead. Case closed. Sorry about that whole "rushing headlong into a war" thing.

And now, on "Dancing with the Stars"...

what_now: Yeah, ok. Suuuure..it was just this one guy. Who's dead. Case closed. Sorry about that whole "rushing headlong into a war" thing.



Don't you think they could have done a little better than a few letters if they were trying to scare us into war?

Wow. You know I never took 9/11 truthers seriously until I heard this.

Now it's like... what wouldn't our government do? I mean, Christ.

ABC? More like NBC am i rite?

/millitary farkers?
//nuclear.biological.chemical?

Code_Archeologist 2008-08-01 10:38:38 AM
My one question is why? Was this guy just some ideologue that wanted to ratchet up the fear a little more, or wanted the US to invade Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations? I want to know why he did it, and more importantly I want to know if he acted alone.

Before getting to why, why don't we start with IF he did it. So far all we have is an accusation and a body. We haven't seen what the government supposedly has on the guy. I also wonder about the timing. Did he croak himself and the feds then decide that he'd now make a convenient fall-guy to accuse because they're embarrassed that they haven't found anyone in 6 years? There's a lot more to know about this story before concluding that Ivins is the one.

Zxaranthium: 2wolves: No terrorism in the U.S. since 9/11?

I haven't been robbed since I bought a purple rock, either. I recommend buying a purple rock to everyone.

A purple Pet Rock is the best protection, IMO.

Shaggy_C: Don't you think they could have done a little better than a few letters if they were trying to scare us into war?

Why would they need to? It worked perfectly, whether it was them or not.

I'm still not of this "9/11 was an inside job" mentality but I could certainly understand why some people feel that way. They wanted a war with Iraq from the word "Go." All that happened since Bush's inauguration very conveniently let that happen.

Shaggy_C: Don't you think they could have done a little better than a few letters if they were trying to scare us into war?

They did do a little better. The letters contained anthrax.

You remember, right?

1.) I always thought it suspect that the FBI had never solved this case.

2.) I'm sure Saddam's grand plan to destroy the great satan was to mail them anthrax.

I really don't like conspiracy theories. But this guy works for the gov, Nestea Plunge posts the quote above (I'm assuming you aren't lying, I just don't remember that story), and this guy is suicided as the DOJ closes in? Not to mention the full court press to pin the attacks on Iraq?

eh, I need more tinfoil.

If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick.

The article is correct. Without any speculation or inference, it is hard to overstate those facts.

Further down,

That means that the same Government lab where the anthrax attacks themselves came from was the same place where the false reports originated that blamed those attacks on Iraq.

Quod erat demonstratum, this was a flase flag attack.

I'm no tin-foil wearer, but damn this looks bad.

Shaggy_C: Don't you think they could have done a little better than a few letters if they were trying to scare us into war?

Look, I don't honestly think Cheney sent the letters. But I also don't feel comfortable about how this is all wrapped up neatly. Excuse me if I call bullshiat on this government; if any of them shook my hand I'd count my fingers.

But as for "Scaring us into war"...isn't that EXACTLY what they did?

Kuoxasar: Why would they need to? It worked perfectly, whether it was them or not.

That's the point. If they really wanted to make this a true 'scare' to goad us into war you might think they would have thought ahead enough to use real Iraqi anthrax (which we could easily obtain from the corrupt-ass UN teams) and mass disperse it via mailer around the US. Four letters did not 'sell the war'.

Shaggy_C: Don't you think they could have done a little better than a few letters if they were trying to scare us into war?

Do you have any idea the number and breadth of surveillance programs that began or were greatly expanded in the period these letters went out? Very few do. Then there's the Patriot Act too, DHS, etc, etc. The motive wouldn't necessarily have to have been Iraq.

Shaggy_C: If they really wanted to make this a true 'scare' to goad us into war you might think they would have thought ahead enough to use real Iraqi anthrax

And why, exactly? As far as anyone was concerned, if the press said it was Iraqi anthrax, how would they know any difference.

I mean, Ronco didn't come out with their Source-o-Anthrax-o-Maticoontil several months after the Iraq war started.

And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006:

Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."

By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."

Ohhhhh, he's one of those people. Strange for a catholic to hit clean up for the jews, but I guess muslim fear really tears down those walls.

Nestea Plunge: "Associated Press reported that members of Vice President Cheney's staff took Cipro a week before the first anthrax attack. "

Jun 21, 2007

First anthrax attack was on September 18th, 2001. What was a week before that?

excellent piece on this subject that makes a lot of valid points ^{(^)}

Filters. Bah.

If it screwed up the joke, I was mocking your assertion that it would somehow be important to use the actual stuff in this sort of an operation.

And, as a further point, you also assume that the political genius who would supposedly have thought up this operation would have known that you can tell where the Anthrax came from by analysis.

Skleenar: And why, exactly? As far as anyone was concerned, if the press said it was Iraqi anthrax, how would they know any difference.

Tsk, tsk. If you're going to conspire something on that level, you'd be an idiot to leave such a glaringly obvious hole in the plan. Look, this guy was a loose cannon just as much as John Lee Malvo or Richard Reid. Stop trying to make this bigger than it is.

Hobodeluxe: excellent piece on this subject that makes a lot of valid points (^)

Whoah.

That guy agrees completely with the linked article.

Obviously it must all be true!

There is certainly no "conspiracy" here. All it clearly demonstrates is the media is (ABC in this case) willing to run a piece without sufficient supporting facts, and that the FBI is largely inept.

Shaggy_C: If you're going to conspire something on that level, you'd be an idiot to leave such a glaringly obvious hole in the plan.

You'd have also been an idiot to think invading Iraq was a good idea, so I am not sure that your point is a valid one.

Shaggy_C: Kuoxasar: Why would they need to? It worked perfectly, whether it was them or not.

That's the point. If they really wanted to make this a true 'scare' to goad us into war you might think they would have thought ahead enough to use real Iraqi anthrax (which we could easily obtain from the corrupt-ass UN teams) and mass disperse it via mailer around the US. Four letters did not 'sell the war'.

Like they "thought ahead" about what happens after they declare "Mission Accomplished? Or what happens after there are no WMD's found (because they knew they never existed in the first place)?

The problem is that you are ascribing a level of competence, foresight and intelligence to this administration that the last seven years have proven to be non-existent.

3_Butt_Cheeks: There is certainly no "conspiracy" here. All it clearly demonstrates is the media is (ABC in this case) willing to run a piece without sufficient supporting facts, and that the FBI is largely inept.

Oh, good. Now I feel much better.

3_Butt_Cheeks: There is certainly no "conspiracy" here. All it clearly demonstrates is the media is (ABC in this case) willing to run a piece without sufficient supporting facts, and that the FBI is largely inept.

Four independent sources is considered pretty responsible journalism.

Assuming that they weren't lying about that tidbit, the question is how did four independent sources claim exactly the same thing--and how did that same information all point to Iraq as the culprit.

It's not like there wasn't a conspiracy to convince the American people we needed to invade Iraq--so it isn't a huge step to link this with that effort at all.

Skleenar: You'd have also been an idiot to think invading Iraq was a good idea, so I am not sure that your point is a valid one.

a vast majority of this country thought it was a good idea at the time.

3_Butt_Cheeks: There is certainly no "conspiracy" here. All it clearly demonstrates is the media is (ABC in this case) willing to run a piece without sufficient supporting facts, and that the FBI is largely inept.

So were you and Subby the only two people that completely missed the point of the piece?

Or are you Subby?

Thoses are your choices.

Skleenar: Four independent sources is considered pretty responsible journalism.

Perhaps, but it seems like they just "told them" rather than providing tangible proof. For a story that big, I would assume the burden of evidence to be a bit higher. Look at Dan Rather.

Ivins was my prime suspect all along.

For starters, they knew back in 2001 that the strain of Anthrax was American as soon as they analyzed samples. They also knew where that particular strain of anthrax, the Ames strain, was a perfect match for anthrax being used by researchers at only five US laboratories. Terrorists could attempt to weaponize American germs--anthrax is a common soil organism but would surely know as well as I do that anthrax is not terribly infectious and would need a lot of sophisticated work to become an effective weapon.

There are (as I learned back in 2001) four military and one non-military labs working with that particular strain of anthrax. Ivins was one of the people working at one of the military labs and became a person of interest shortly after the scare.

Ivins may have wanted to play the hero, as many kooks do--firefighters, for example, start a lot of fires; security guards phone in a lot of bomb threats, etc.

Ivins may have been a disgruntled employee and may have made his point against an establishment he didn't trust to do the right thing, as many leakers do, only with a "leak" of anthrax rather than papers.

Or it may have been political.

Conspiracy theorists have already started their engines, jumping the flag on this one, no doubt.

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1216-03.htm

Quotation:
Published on Sunday, December 16, 2001 in the Washington Post
Capitol Hill Anthrax Matches Army's Stocks
5 Labs Can Trace Spores to Ft. Detrick
by Rick Weiss and Susan Schmidt

Genetic fingerprinting studies indicate that the anthrax spores mailed to Capitol Hill are identical to stocks of the deadly bacteria maintained by the U.S. Army since 1980, according to scientists familiar with the most recent tests.
Although many laboratories possess the Ames strain of anthrax involved in this fall's bioterrorist attacks, only five laboratories so far have been found to have spores with perfect genetic matches to those in the Senate letters, the scientists said. And all those labs can trace back their samples to a single U.S. military source: the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Md.

"That means the original source [of the terrorist material] had to have been USAMRIID," said one of the scientists.

Shaggy_C: Look, this guy was a loose cannon just as much as John Lee Malvo or Richard Reid. Stop trying to make this bigger than it is.

But we'll never know that. You'll never be able to prove it, because there won't be a trial.

Do you get why people are concerned? This could be one loan nut, but We. Can't. KNOW. That.

mandrsn1: a vast majority of this country thought it was a good idea at the time.

While I might quibble with your use of the term 'vast', consider what their government was telling them.

I mean, there WAS a conspiracy to create this perception. That's public record.

John the Magnificent: 3_Butt_Cheeks: There is certainly no "conspiracy" here. All it clearly demonstrates is the media is (ABC in this case) willing to run a piece without sufficient supporting facts, and that the FBI is largely inept.

So were you and Subby the only two people that completely missed the point of the piece?

Or are you Subby?

Thoses are your choices.

No and no. I read the article. What is YOUR point?