Anthrax and the FBI

Wall Street Journal ^ | August 4, 2008 | Wall Street Journal

[libstripper]

We often disagree with Tom Daschle, but the former Senate Majority Leader had it right yesterday when he said that last week's suicide of a U.S. microbiologist shouldn't end the probe into the 2001 anthrax attacks. Given how the FBI has mishandled this case, the Bush Administration has an obligation to make its evidence and the history of its investigation public.

Americans will be relieved if the attacker was Bruce Ivins, who killed himself with an overdose of pills as prosecutors reportedly planned to charge him with killing five people by sending finely milled anthrax spores through the mail. The unsolved case has left large doubts about public safety and bioterrorism. If a domestic scientist is the source, it would mean that foreign terrorists don't yet have the means or the will to weaponize anthrax.

[libstripper]

Although Ivins was involved with a lot of anthrax research, I haven't seen an explanation of how he could have weaponized the stuff in a government lab without somebody seeing him do it and immediately reporting it. Right now the check on the "Crime Corruption" applies as much to the FBI as to Ivins.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Now the Wall Street Journal asking questions.

[Banjoguy]

From rigged forensics to murdering or otherwise causing the deaths of American citizens, don’t the FBI and BATF screw up everything they touch?

[wendy1946]

There's a near 100% certainty that this story we're reading is BS. They're not even trying to explain how the first cases turned up ten miles from where the 9-11 jackers were living, how somebody at Ft. Dietrich knew to set the anthrax thing in motion days prior to 9-11, or what possible MOTIVE there might have been and that last item is a killer.

What motive could an American scientist possibly have for poisoning a post office building and the US senate office building with anthrax? All we've read so far is "This guy was a serious a$$h***, he musta done it!!". I've known lots of serious a$$H***s and the idea of poisoning the US senate office building with anthrax or anything else never occurred to any of them.

What possible motive? Money? The feds oave been watching this guy for seven years and just now notice something amiss in his bank accounts? Sex? You mean like "Screw rock stars and rappers, I wanna make it with that old guy who just poisoned the US senate office building with anthrax, that's KOOL!!"?? Bragging rights are out since there's no evidence he ever told anybody about it. Personal satisfaction? Like maybe "Well, now I've proved to myself I can poison the US senate office building with anthrax, time to go out and learn how to crush golf balls with a #2 wood driver!!"

ALL of that is BS. The anthrax attack was a shot across the bow from Saddam Hussein. It was a message to America which translates roughly into "Hey, fools, a bunch of my homeys just blew your two towers down and if you try to do anything about it, here's a taste of what could happen!!!"

[libstripper]

If you’re making a mooring stake to hold a mooring in a frozen harbor over the winter, you start out with a fence post, caulk it, cover it with fiberglass, paint it, attach a ring to the top for grabbing it in the spring, drill a large hole in the bottom to hold your mooring chain, and add a weight so it will stick up in the air. Only then does the fence post become a mooring stake. By the time it’s ready to go into the water, you have about 15 hours of labor and $100 of cost into what started out as a $5.00 fence post, plus a good deal of mess in your garage.

From all I’ve read about this anthrax case, laboratory anthrax is to weaponized anthrax much as my fence post is to my mooring stake; hence, going from lab anthrax to weaponized anthrax would take a lot of research and processing. The FBI still hasn’t managed to explain how Ivins was able to turn ordinary lab anthrax into weaponized anthrax without getting caught. For example, they’ve not mentioned any actual connection he may have had with a program to weaponize it, any research he may have done in any such program, or how he was able actually to do the weaponization without getting caught.

[wendy1946]

FYI.

[ravingnutter]

"At this stage it is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of the hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything.... The viruses easily spread by air, and people are affected without feeling it."

- Uday Hussein, 9/20/01 (NOTE: The first Anthrax-laced letters were mailed on 9/18/01) (That means Hussein's son wrote this before any news had come out about the Anthrax mailings in the U.S.) (Noted in the Wall Street Journal, "Saddam and the Next 9/11", 2/14/03)

More here

[M1D]

More examples of fbi and others clearing a case rather than solving it-former LEO

[Rocketwolf68]

That’s the key- where and how. The FBI will be spinning a tale to try to explain this. Get ready for the charts showing the broken plane rising 3000 feet... whoops, wrong scenario- get ready for the FBI to show how he used a an easybake oven, veggie-slicer and vacuum food-saver to weaponize the anthrax. It’s easy to pick on the dead guy who can’t defend himself. Oh, if the Feds were only as good as hollyweird makes them out to be...

[Shadow44]

No, the conspiracy theorists believe its part of a shadowy plot by the government to terrorize the public in going along with the War on Terror and subsequently, Iraq.

[SatinDoll]

I’m not a conspiracy freak nor do I believe in shadowy government plots. But I do believe in the willingness of politicians to lie about events and gloss over situations that could affect them adversely in the eye of the public.

Remember that jet liner that crashed into Jamaica Bay, New York, just a short while after 9/11? Clips from one the surveillance video cameras on a bridge showed a puff of smoke coming out of the jet’s side just before the pilot lost hydralics. That “puff” was the perfect place where a shoe bomber could take out the plane’s hydralics by putting his shoebomb up against the interior bulkhead and detonating. Afterward, Fox News said the video clips were all pulled from news sources. The orginal has never been released to the public. So, if the government’s explanation is true, why keep the video from public perusal?

There was an oil refinery in Texas that seriously burned a few years ago and real quick, the Feds said it wasn’t an act of terror. Months later Fire Investigators discovered that a number of incendiary bombs had been set to go off sequentially. By that time, the incident was out of the public’s concern.

The pattern of denying terrorist acts in this nation, I believe is politically driven. The Clintons did the same thing, the Murrah Building expolision in OK City being the most blatant. Bill Clinton actually sent out a memo to the FBI ordering them to cease investigating any Arab involvement in that incident. (see Jayna Davis’ book, The Third Terrorist. If you’ve never heard of this book, Davis is an investagative journalist.)

The public cannot make political decisions if the Feds AND the MSM are both hiding the truth about events in this country.

Am I paranoid? No, far from it. My first reaction, as a loyal citizen, is to always trust authorities. My second is to verify, a good piece of advice from Ronald Reagan.