Posted on 09/27/2006 2:12:08 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 · Last updated 11:43 a.m. PT http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_FBI_Anthrax.html Congressman wants FBI anthrax briefing By DONNA DE LA CRUZ ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- A New Jersey congressman said Wednesday it should have taken the FBI days, not years, to determine the anthrax used in 2001 that killed five people was much less sophisticated than believed.
Democratic Rep. Rush Holt asked FBI Director Robert Mueller for a classified briefing about the status of the bureau's investigation into who was behind the attacks.
Several published reports this week said the FBI had acknowledged the anthrax used in the attacks was commonly available and not weapons-grade.
In his letter to Mueller, Holt said the FBI's failure to determine what kind of anthrax was used meant that "resources were diverted and countless agents wasted their time investigating a small pool of suspects, instead of the broader search we now know was needed."
The FBI has conducted 9,100 interviews and issued 6,000 subpoenas.
Holt asked Mueller to have Douglas Beecher, a scientist in the FBI's Hazardous Materials Response Unit, testify before the House Intelligence Committee.
Beecher recently wrote an article in a scientific journal saying there was "a widely circulated misconception" that the anthrax spores were made using additives and sophisticated engineering akin to military weapons production.
FBI spokesman Bill Carter said he did not know if Mueller had received Holt's letter.
The anthrax attacks, in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, killed five people across the country and sickened 17. There were five confirmed anthrax infections and two suspected cases in New Jersey but no fatalities.
Every year produces a flurry of anthrax articles circa the anniversary. Some reporters have it calendared, methinks.
My advice for any reporters and other curiosity seekers out there wanting to ask some question of Douglas Beecher is: don't waste your time. I suspect Mr. Beecher isn't going to be answering any questions for us, now or ever.
href=http://www.afip.org/images/public/nl081002.pdf
The AFIP lab deputy director, Florabel Mullick, said "This [silica] was a key component. Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize.
That's the kind of logic that keeps this debate going. The leak occurred in October 2001, and TrebleRebel says it was public information in November of 2002. How does that show it wasn't a leak in October 2001?
It would help if people spent more time looking at facts instead of just voicing opinions. And, when looking at the facts, you should look at ALL the facts, not just the facts which you can twist to support your point of view.
Ed
Are you saying the existence of the above link to statements from named military scientists is not a fact?
If you are that curious, you could look up his complete,peer-reviewed research paper.
I did-though I don't have the link anymore.
The Catch-22 I'm talking about is the fact that from the beginning, the government has gone out of their way to make it seem as though the attacks were done by a "domestic" and not by Islamic terrorists. Even the stupid name "Amerithrax" was created in order to give just that impression; it's intended to tell everyone "this was American anthrax", ie not Al Qaeda.
Now however, they have not just claimed that the anthrax was less sophisticated than originally thought, but they have even gone so far as to publicly admit that the Ames strain was available all over the planet, and not just in seven or eight labs in the United States, which is why the "pool of suspects" has been widened.
Take a guess what that means about who could have done the attacks? They've basically stated that most of the original assumptions and reports were all wrong, yet oddly they won't admit the most obvious implication of all: which is that the original assumption of an "American scientist" is wrong as well!
That's the Catch-22 I'm talking about my friend. And I don't know how they get out of it now.
The existence of the link is fact. You can click on it to verify that.
It is also a fact that the named military scientists made the statements in the AFIP newsletter article.
What is NOT a fact is that there was an additive in the attack anthrax. Beecher says that is NOT a fact. The facts indicate that AFIP merely detected silicon and oxygen and ASSUMED it was an additive and ASSUMED it was silica. The facts indicate that it was most likely some other form of silicon and oxygen (such as glass) absorbed from laboratory equipment. In other words, it was "lab contamination" from the CULPRIT'S lab.
You can believe otherwise, but the facts will be coming out on this, I assure you. It seems pretty clear that the Beecher article is just the first in a series intended to blow away all the nonsense about coatings and additives with solid scientific fact.
Ed
This is another popular misconception, just like the nonsense about coatings and additives.
The depositions in the Hatfill v Ashcroft lawsuit clearly show that the FBI was pressured into publicly investigating Dr. Hatfill by the staffs of Senators Daschle and Leahy. Those staffs even got briefings on search warrants, the results of searches, and the results of lie detector tests. It was ILLEGAL for the FBI to give that information to those staff members, because it is a violation of the Privacy Act. That is why Hatfill will win his case. The FBI freely admits that they gave such information to the staffers and that it was in violation of the Privacy Act.
The public harassment of Dr. Hatfill began in late June, 2002, after more than SIX MONTHS of repeated demands from politically motivated conspiracy theorists, from the media, and from politicians who believed those conspiracy theorists. They were all claiming that the FBI was covering up for Dr. Hatfill. The only way the FBI could prove that they weren't covering up for Dr. Hatfill was to publicly investigate him.
So, blaming the FBI for the harassment of Dr. Hatfill is just another example of not looking at ALL the facts.
Ed
No one who looks at ALL the facts could possibly believe that either al Qaeda or Iraq were behind the attacks.
But it's not worth arguing over, since the ONLY argument such people have is that it cannot be proven that it is IMPOSSIBLE for al Qaeda or Iraq to have done it. And if you can't prove it's IMPOSSIBLE, then they are free to believe it is true - no matter how ridiculous the belief is.
Ed
The way they get out of it is to start investigating Barbara Hatch Rosenberg to find out why she was working so hard to provide distracting cover from the various leftwing groups that might have done this.
Oh, yes, the contamination ~ did you ever tear apart an embossed postage paid envelope to see what's in the paper to make it stiff and bright?
Do you have any evidence that any of the mailpieces were mailed after September 8, 2001?
Fascinating stuff.
Although I have no proof of it, there's no doubt in my mind that the antipatriotic left here in America is receiving massive amounts of backdoor funding from our various enemies overseas, probably including many of the Islamist nations. I have a dream that someday a patriotic journalist will dig into this and find proof of these connections and break open our equivalent of Watergate.
I guess it all depends upon what you call "evidence". The first letters to the media were postmarked September 18, 2001, and the second batch to the two senators were postmarked October 9, 2001.
That's pretty good evidence that the letters were mailed after September 8, 2001. But I was just arguing with someone else who insists it's possible that the letters could have sat around in some post office or mail box for a week and a month before they were finally processed. And I can't prove that didn't happen - even though it is totally preposterous to believe that it DID happen that way.
Very large copies of the 4 postmarked envelopes which were recovered are on my site. They're in the original main page.
Ed
I agree that the FBI should never have allowed themselves to be pressured into publicly investigating Dr. Hatfill. But I also understand how it could happen. At the time, there was a lot of talk about merging the FBI into Homeland Security because the FBI failed to stop 9/11. So, evidently Van Harp just decided it was better to bend to the pressure than to stand up to it and get destroyed.
Does 1% of Ed Lake think I'm right???
I cannot prove that "Islamic extremists" were NOT behind the anthrax attacks, so I have to acknowledge the possibility that they were. I can estimate the possibility to be a 1% possibility. But do I think you're right. No. Absolutely not. All I can do is acknowledge the possibility.
Ed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.