Posted on 06/25/2002 3:04:53 PM PDT by John H K
On the other thread, Fred Mertz pointed out that the local TV news programs mentioned that the cameras were already there when the vans arrived.
It was a staged event, not a serious investigation.
Exactly. A few months ago, the FBI leaked a story "on background" to ABC News about an ex-Battelle scientist who supposedly had made anthrax threats just after September 11. ABC used the story to pad out one of the boilerplate "domestic suspect" filler pieces that were coming out at that time. The outlines of the story sounded really impressive. However, even with the vague details they provided, there was enough in ABC News' story to dig up the one extant contemparaneous reference to the incident on the web, which appeared in a Milwaukee newspaper (I may have been the first person to that, incidentally). Within a couple of days it came out that the suspect was completely innocent and the whole story was nothing but a red herring.
Pay close attention, because the same patterns keep repeating themselves. Bush cannot point the finger at the source of the anthrax, because the anthrax threat is designed precisely to deter Bush from finger-pointing. Hence the stall. But here's a clue: the anthrax was supplied to the 9-11 team by Saddam Hussein, who is also the architect of the entire 9-11 operation. It's his "insurance policy."
If this were the anthrax mailer, I doubt very much that he'd agree to a "consensual search." This would appear to be somebody looking to clear himself; from the FBI's point of view, they would like to appear to be making some progress on the case.
Moreover, even if somebody else from Ft. Detrick turns out to be implicated in some fashion, that does not make this an act of domestic terrorism or in any way confirm Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's tireless speculations. The anthrax sent by Islamic terrorists could well be derived from anthrax stolen from a U.S. lab. (Being of the Ames strain, it is derived, directly or indirectly, from anthrax obtained in the U.S. either legitimately or illegitimately. It might have been from an academic research lab or from a military lab; it probably was not collected in the wild. But, after being obtained, the anthrax was likely grown in large quantities elsewhere and weaponized elsewhere before being provided to the terrorists; finding out about that would be much more interesting than discovering the original source of the anthrax sample that was used.)
1. With regard to today’s search they say this was one of two dozen like it.
2. They have found no evidence linking the person to the anthrax scare.
(Yes, I know, I know, who believes anything the FBI says)
Whether any of these particular individuals were guilty or not (and it's true that most are said to have been "cleared," whatever that means), it does seem that the FBI's trail led to Pakistanis, and that probably means that the trail extends back to Pakistan.
Well, I would agree. But, on a tangential point, if something is in one's self-interest, can it be described as moral/ethical?
I don't know, but if you're interested, here are my thoughts. Professionals have codes of "ethics". Most circumscribe behavior that would be in the individual's self-interest (at least short-term) for the good of society. Almost all professionals must act AGAINST their own self-interest at times in order to comply with ethical standards. Contrast that with attorneys. Their code of "ethics", for example, states that all defendants deserve a defense. Therefore, it is "ethical" to defend everyone. But that just gives attorneys cover to act in their own self-interest (having a job) and is not ethical by anyone's dispassionate definition. Sorry for the irrelevant rant.
You proved what I already knew. You don't have enough information to argue the point yourself. Do you know how lame it is to provide a link when you are the one who is being questioned?
To cut the FBI some slack, there are indications that President Bush has done a few things to hamper the FBI's investigation in nearly every aspect of the WTC attacks. Maybe it isn't the FBI as much as it is the President.
You haven't demolished anything. All you know to do is post ridiculous links. Right now..let's talk about it. Be specific.
And all you know how to do is issue ridiculous challenges.
But then, maybe you think that they are right on top of things. It's a minority opinion of the ignorant, but I can respect your right to hold those opinions. Too bad you won't realize that the FBI, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be getting the job done.
All you know to do is espouse anarchist leanings, methinks.
I think it's the root of your political self.
Hate the government at all cost, ignoring any responsibilty to debate the issue.
Too bad that you don't seem to want to take it upon YOURSELF to provide the specifics. You can't, can you?
Being on top of things is not what I am saying. I am saying that they are doing a better job than you or I. It isn't clear to any of us what they know. Neither of us know what they know, do we?
Like asking you to support your comments? Sorry, I'm asking for more than you seem to be able to deliver.
Specifically, what were the challenges? Was it that asked you to go toe-to-toe with me, i.e., not simply providing links?
Is that too much for you?
You seem to think feel like I owe you something. I don't.
If I provide a link for back up, you don't want to look at it, and you only want my personal thoughts.
Then you want me to back up my thoughts. But you don't want any links.
Don't bother reading this stuff, or you might end up revising forming an opinion.
I'll bet that you think that McVeigh masterminded the OKC bombing and that FBI and ATF did a fantastic job on that one, too.
Wednesday November 7, 2001
FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.
US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.
ELSNER:
You have a key relationship between the Saudis and the former President of the US who happens to be the father of the current President of the US. And you have all sorts of questions about where does policy begin and where does good business and good profits for the company, Carlyle, end?
PALAST:
I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency. He tells me that while there's always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents. I'm told that since September 11th the policy has been reversed. FBI headquarters told us they could not comment on our findings. A spokesman said: "There are lots of things that only the intelligence community knows and that no-one else ought to know.
According to the book, O'Neill resigned in protest over the Bush's administration attempt to obstruct efforts by both the FBI and CIA to apprehend terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. According to the book's authors, the Bush Administration began impeding attempts to apprehend Bin Laden as early as February of 2001. They did this to appease the Taliban during negotiations for the pipeline.
The book also reveals that a former top FBI counterterrorism official who was killed in the World Trade Center attack had complained bitterly about how U.S. oil politics had shut down FBI investigations. The former official, John O'Neill, resigned in protest as head of the FBI's national security division in August and was hired as chief of security at the twin towers. "All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia," O'Neill is quoted as saying in the book. Agents trying to probe last year's bombing of the USS Cole constantly knocked heads with the U.S. State Department, which ended up barring O'Neill, the head of the investigation, from entering Yemen. Brisard says O'Neill told him about the problems last June and July. "He was profoundly frustrated with the situation."
Now STOP it. I really mean it!
Yeah, I think the FBI was verrrry slow in the anthrax investigation. I'm also developing an opinion that maybe it isn't all their fault.
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.