Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
All they have is more smoke and bullshit to try to 'make a case' in the publics eye.
This 'case' has been a disgrace. That coupled with the 'other big case' left over from the 9/11 daze: Who shorted the stocks of the company stock that took a direct hit due to 9/11/2001.
Yet another mystery. Who did it, where were they at, why did some of them chicken out.
Yet another interesting 'coincidence' and another bumbled 'investigation' by the Bushist junta.
Who bungled the anthrax attacks is an interesting question. The idea that they were partisan is a no-brainer. Yeah it was a coincidence that democrats and a few 'journalists' were targeted. Pure 'coincidence'. Was it done by a 'lone wolf'? There aren't any 'lone wolves' in the Bushist Gestapo.
The more spinning the story does, the more it looks like it's flying apart but 'Joe six-pack' will be frightened and relieved that teh gub-ment has found their man (straw man style)...
From all I have seen of the behavior of this administration and the evidence against Ivins, I find it FAR more likely that the government is lying.
The next President has a solemn duty to aggreessively investigate the widespread corruption and illegal activities and punish to the full extent of the law. If he does not do this, then the fundamental nature of our country has changed.
It is incredible to me that the government admits that a biological attacked was perpetrated upon the United States with materials from its own research facilities, yet the news coverage is focused entirely on the alleged predilections of the FBI's most recent target. And even with that misdirected attention, major news organizations like the AP cannot detect the obvious, gaping logical holes in the information being served up by their sources. Can every journalist, editor, and content selector really be so clueless or disinterested in what happened here?
The ones remaining in the lab that are speaking out in Ivin's defense have to be pretty brave.
God knows, nobody in their right mind would want the focus of the investigation to switch to them.
In the meantime, if Ivins didn't do it, the killer is sitting pretty happy right now.
I believe others have pointed this out before, but something to have handy as the FBI rolls out its case is the time line Marcy Wheeler put together on her bolg.
Anthrax Timeline
By: emptywheel Monday August 4, 2008 5:49 pm
Link at sig.
Duley said in the court recordings that "He has been forensically diagnosed by several top psychiatrists as a sociopathic homicidal killer."
Who are these psychiatrists? When did they diagnose him?
In my opinion, the statements from the therapist, Ms. Duley, are the most troublesome. (Not that I believe them). The ridiculous aspersions cast on Ivins regarding the KKG sorority, alcohol abuse & pornography really don't hold any water when you think about them. But if a licensed therapist (albeit one with some criminal & substance abuse problems of her own) is claiming you threatened to kill people and go out in a blaze of glory... that seems to be the most damaging allegation so far. And since the FBI only needs to convict the now-deceased Ivins in the Media & Court of Public Opinion, it is a sticking point.
I read the article noting that Duley was still in college as of '07 - '08, but shouldn't it be even easier to find out if she was a licensed therapist at all? Does Maryland have a state board overseeing this? Or was she just holding impromptu therapy sessions open to the general public in her living room?
It seems to me that a new principle of journalism is required. Sources who claim to be government employees must be identified throughout any story that quotes them by:
1. full name, title, and agency affiliation, or
2. "the whistleblower", or
3. "the anonymous coward"
because there really are no other types of government sources, are there?
These stories about Ivins now are nothing more than scurrilous gossip about evidence that may or may not exist. The gossipers should be named, or at least correctly labelled.
Same rule should apply to employees of government contractors.
I must have missed the news item, way back when.
Who is the Bush appointee who is now in charge of the FBI, directing its investigations?
On one of the other threads, someone pointed out that "forensically diagnosed" means they didn't have to interview him.
My guess is the forensic diagnosis was of the anthrax killer in general. Since Duley was told it was Ivins, it means he was the homicidal maniac. She had no reason to doubt the FBI, they just used her to get the info out there and pressure Ivins even more.
Again, the FBI wouldn't offer her protection after Duley was released, I guess they weren't that afraid of the serial killer, were they?
Just to illustrate how utterly unreliable and often frivolous the Government-media leaking ritual has been...
The leaked "scientific" evidence is no better. If anything, it's worse.
This is painfully obvious to anyone looking at the conflicting statements made regarding the attacks by bio-weapons experts
and government officials - you can find a brief summary of them at the Wiki article - and why I said before this has all the hallmarks of an intentional smokescreen and disinformation operation, perhaps to just obscure the fact the Bush admin had violated another treaty, but possibly worse. It is the reason I haven't delved into reading the various news articles and reports. There should be a full blown congressional investigation. If there isn't one, people should get pissed. But I do not understand why you appeared to accuse General Zod of being sufficiently uncritical of the government's claims. Perhaps he didn't express himself clearly.
The concern some of us have is the danger the line between your legitimate questions and efforts to force some accountability through a formal investigation and 9/11 truth cult will become too blurred. That would be unfortunate for you and all of us.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/05/ron-suskind-white-house-ordered-forgery-to-link-al-qaedasaddam-to-911-attacks/
In October ‘03, CIA paid Habbush $5 million as part of his resettlement. By then, the White House had finally thought of a way to use Habbush. … The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq — thus showing, finally that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda… The letter also mentioned suspicious shipments to Iraq from Niger set up with al Qaeda’s assistance. The idea was to take the letter to Habbush and have him transcribe it in his own neat handwriting on a piece of Iraqi government stationery, to make it look legitimate. CIA would then take the finished product to Baghdad and have someone release it to the media.
Ron Suskind is a top notch journalist ... if this story checks out there should be no option but impeachment. Impeachment should be what's the "slam dunk".
I link this 1. because it's flabbergasting 2. because it further implies the absolute imperative need to investigate and get a full accounting of what the hell happened with these antrax letters.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
