Another interesting graph from the same December 22, 2001 NYT article by William Broad and David Johnston in the UCLA archive @

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/UStriedfailediraqanthraxlink.html

that I quoted extensively from earlier:

Some senior Bush administration officials have begun to worry privately that the case might take decades to solve, likening it to the Unabomber investigation that baffled investigators for nearly 20 years until David Kaczynski became suspicious of his brother Theodore and alerted the F.B.I.

With the case just over two months old and fresh evidence seemingly diminishing the possibilities of who and where, the administration was already putting out signals that they were ready to throw up their hands, that they were at a dead end and looking at an investigation that would take decades to solve, if ever.

A pretty curious position to take so early in an investigaton and with recent developements in the case greatly reducing the number of suspects.

sorry for the obvious errors.

There may be an overreliance on reports in the news from 2001 and 2002 to try to make sense of whatever was going on with the anthrax attacks and Ivins's involvement or lack of it. Trouble is, much of what was being put out back then was propaganda and lies, some of it was true, some of it irrelevant, but a good deal was just hype and hysteria. In retrospect, this, that, or the other report from the era may seem "obviously" a lie or "obviously" true, but it may not be so, not at all.

Everything from that time period, as well as anything and everything the FBI has to say about their dead target now should be regarded with intense skepticism.

Just as the Pentagon's first response to almost everything is to lie, the FBI and Department of Justice have a well deserved reputation for doing likewise, especially in high profile cases like this. Not only do they lie, they leak and spread their lies constantly.

A Congressional investigation is a nice idea, but there is a problem, is there not, in that the Congress can't seem to get the Executive branch reps to testify, or if they do testify, they don't do so truthfully.

The system is broken.

The old methods don't work anymore. "Truth" is unlikely to be found in a Congressional inquiry at this point.

A better course might be to bring together witnesses and skeptics (there seem to be a lot of them turning up and speaking out) independently of the Government, perhaps by means of an alternative media consortium, and have them perform the inquiry. Who knows, maybe some whistleblower will come forward, especially if s/he feels "safe" to do so.

A potential whistleblower would be a fool to come forward from within the Government, at least if they value their lives or those of their loved ones. Which may be the answer to Ellsberg's question about how come no whistleblowers have come forth given the enormity of the Bushevik crimes.

If you want the "best of the best", like you are, investigating this story, and who won't stop until every stone is turned then contact Greg Palast. He is the man to get to the truth about the anthrax investigation.

If he can't print the outcome of the story here in the United States, he will print the story in the British newspapers. When a hot story about the US appears in the British press, it usually manages to find its way to the garbage excuse for journalism here.

You can contact Greg Palast here: http://www.gregpalast.com/

Thank you for everything you are doing, Glenn. You are wonderful!

It looks like part of the reason Spertzel still wanted to point to Iraq for the source of the anthrax is that he knew Iraq had a good supply of the right kind of silica. Here are a few snippets from an article in the Washington Post from October 28, 2002:

However, Iraq's alleged preference for bentonite appears to be based on a single sample of a common pesticide collected by U.N. authorities from Iraq's Al Hakam biological weapons facility in the mid-1990s. By contrast, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency warned in declassified documents as early as 1989 that Iraq was acquiring silica to use as a chemical weapons additive.

/snip/

Bush administration officials have acknowledged that the anthrax attacks were an important motivator in the U.S. decision to confront Iraq, and several senior administration officials say today that they still strongly suspect a foreign source -- perhaps Iraq -- even though no one has publicly said so.

That Iraq had the wherewithal to make the anthrax letters does not mean it is the guilty party. Still, the FBI's early dismissal of the possibility may have prematurely closed a legitimate line of inquiry.

"Iraq almost certainly had their anthrax spores in a powdered form," Spertzel said. "They had used silica gel to aid in dispersibility of [wheat] smut spores, and also indicated they were looking at it as a carrier for aflatoxin," a carcinogen.

/snip/

Spertzel said the United Nations reported in the 1990s that Iraq had 10 metric tons of Cab-O-Sil, probably destined for its chemical weapons program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28334-2002Oct27

This article also does a good job of pointing out the difficulty for a loner to produce material that was mailed. Although it doesn't mention Dugway, reading this article with the Baltimore Sun article in mind certainly strengthens the case for Dugway being the source.

Tarasoff does not "hold" in Texas.

I believe you. It doesn't everywhere, but does in many if not most jurisdictions.

I have an issue with this post.

I am against animal research like the kind where dogs and pigs were tied outside and in various buildings during the above ground nuclear tests in Nevada and elsewhere. I mean, come on. Wrapping a pig in aluminum foila nd exposing it to the flash intense heat of a nuclear blast is going to roast the thing no matter what it's wrapped in. Tying german sheperd dogs to racks and then watching them totally freak out and die after the explosion is just cruel and heinous. Not at all unlike George Walker Bush blowing up frogs with his M-80's in Texas. I also have a problem with medical equipment reps taking dogs into sales meetings and killing them while demonstrating their product and how it saves human lives.

BUT! I draw the line at testing medicines and some cosmetics. I have toured Eli Lilly's facilities and seen the beagles and monkeys. I also realize that without some form of in vitro animal testing, there would likely be NO testing before a drug is sent to be used on poor people and college students and actual patients who have some hope that the damn drug is going to work.

Do I stand in favor of repeatedly bashing monkey's skulls in to test seat belts or to find out the survival rate of having your head bashed in? NO. But SOME amount of animal testing is just common sense... Animal testing, when done in as humane a process as possible can yield terabytes of data that no computer simulation could ever determine in a million years.

Most drugs aren't tested for what happens to future generations and that is potentially vital information that COULD stop a poisonous drug from reaching the market. Hell, aside from some isolated longitudinal clinical trials, MOST drugs aren't tested for what it does to the offspring of the offspring of the original patient. Why? Human life spans are too long. DES is an example.

The AP had an article today that troubled me about groups in California targeting scientists and researchers. So, firebombing a scientists house helps your cause? How about killing people lined up for abortions or the staff and physicians that perform them? Barbaric? Which one?

'Civilized people' don't trade human lives for animal lives so callously. 'Civilized people' realize that all life is sacred and deserves to live, and die with respect, dignity and comfort. Killing those researchers and scientists and blowing up facilities and personal homes and automobiles places those people that do this on a level of a terrorist who would happily slaughter a bus load of kids headed to summer camp just to 'make a statement'. There are better ways to stop the senseless slaughter of animals and slaughtering other humans isn't it.

/soapbox

Let's remember the animal victims of biowarfare research.

An article in the Washington Post mentioned in passing that Mr. Ivins and his fellow researchers conducted animal tests in the course of their work. I think it's very important for us as a people, allegedly a civilized people, to keep in mind that animals are also the victims of biowarfare. As you read this, mice, and most likely cats, dogs, ferrets, monkeys, and even chimpanzees are being dosed with anthrax, plague, smallpox, ebola, nerve and other poison gases, and all the other ghastly creations of our military. They are suffering horrible fates so that we humans can continue to devise monstrous weapons, to defend against those weapons should other people use them on us, and to create our own weapons for use on other people.

Draw your own conclusions, but ask yourselves whether our species is truly the "superior" species -- made in God's image, the wisest and greatest creatures on this planet -- and whether our fate is even worth bothering over.

-- DurianJoe