(10pm – promoted by RiaD)

Glenn Greenwald has been doing some important reporting on the Anthrax investigation this past week and if you haven’t seen it yet I think it’s well worth checking out.

In chronological order his pieces are-

Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News

Friday Aug. 1, 2008 05:36 EDT

We now know — we knew even before news of Ivins’ suicide last night, and know especially in light of it — that the anthrax attacks didn’t come from Iraq or any foreign government at all. It came from our own Government’s scientist, from the top Army bioweapons research laboratory. More significantly, the false reports linking anthrax to Iraq also came from the U.S. Government — from people with some type of significant links to the same facility responsible for the attacks themselves.

Surely the question of who generated those false Iraq-anthrax reports is one of the most significant and explosive stories of the last decade. The motive to fabricate reports of bentonite and a link to Saddam is glaring. Those fabrications played some significant role — I’d argue a very major role — in propagandizing the American public to perceive of Saddam as a threat, and further, propagandized the public to believe that our country was sufficiently threatened by foreign elements that a whole series of radical policies that the neoconservatives both within and outside of the Bush administration wanted to pursue — including an attack an Iraq and a whole array of assaults on our basic constitutional framework — were justified and even necessary in order to survive.

ABC News already knows the answers to these questions. They know who concocted the false bentonite story and who passed it on to them with the specific intent of having them broadcast those false claims to the world, in order to link Saddam to the anthrax attacks and — as importantly — to conceal the real culprit(s) (apparently within the U.S. government) who were behind the attacks. And yet, unbelievably, they are keeping the story to themselves, refusing to disclose who did all of this. They’re allegedly a news organization, in possession of one of the most significant news stories of the last decade, and they are concealing it from the public, even years later.

Journalists, their lying sources, and the anthrax investigation

Sunday Aug. 3, 2008 07:26 EDT

The unanswered questions in the anthrax case are literally too numerous to chronicle. It is so vital to emphasize that not a shred of evidence has yet been presented that the now-deceased Bruce Ivins played any role in the anthrax attacks, let alone that he was the sole or even primary culprit. Nonetheless, just as they did with Steven Hatfill, the media (with some notable and important exceptions) are reporting this case as though the matter is resolved.

Given the significance of the anthrax attacks, it would be unconscionable for there to be anything other than a full-scale Congressional or independent investigation — with a full airing of all the facts — regarding everything that happened here. Those issues should include exploration of the following questions, many of which might well have perfectly reasonable and benign explanations, and some of which may not, but until there is a full airing, it will necessarily be the case — and it should be the case — that this episode will only serve to further erode whatever lingering trust there is in media and government institutions:

There are plenty of other similar questions. As I said, many of these events could have perfectly reasonable explanations, ranging from significant ineptitude in the FBI investigation to acute caution on the part of the White House in ordering cipro. But given the magnitude of this episode, the far-from-convincing case made against Ivins, and the way in which — even by the most generous account — the Government and media’s conduct have been driven by extreme unreliability and chronic errors, who could argue against a very sweeping and serious Congressional investigation — or a genuinely independent investigative body — devoted to disclosing all of the facts here, along the lines of what the 9/11 Commission was charged with doing?

Do you think you “know” that Ivins’ psychiatrist sought a restraining order against him because he was dangerous?

Additional key facts re: the anthrax investigation

Monday Aug. 4, 2008 06:32 EDT

So much of the public reporting about Ivins has been devoted to depicting him as a highly unstable psychotic who had been issuing extremely violent threats and who had a violent past. But that depiction has been based almost exclusively on the uncorroborated claims of Jean Carol Duley, a social worker (not a psychiatrist or psychologist) who, as recently as last year, was apparently still in college at Hood College in Frederick, Maryland. Duley’s scrawled handwritten complaint against Ivins, seeking a Protective Order, has served as the basis for much of the reporting regarding Ivins’ mental state, yet it is hardly the model of a competent or authoritative professional. Quite the opposite.

Duley herself has a history that, at the very least, raises questions about her credibility. She has a rather lengthy involvement with the courts in Frederick, including two very recent convictions for driving under the influence — one from 2007 and one from 2006 — as well as a complaint filed against her for battery by her ex-husband.

What is certain is that Jean Carol Duley is hardly some upstanding, authoritative source on Bruce Ivins’ psychological state or his guilt, nor is she some accomplished and highly credible psychological professional, notwithstanding the fact that most media depictions of Ivins are based on uncritical recitations of her accusations. The fact that her depiction contradicts not only the claims of virtually everyone else who knew Ivins but also numerous facts about how Ivins was treated even by the FBI (see below), suggests that a large amount of skepticism is warranted.


Just as they did with Steven Hatfill (and Iraq before him), government sources continue to try to convict Bruce Ivins in the media of being the anthrax killer by anonymously leaking incriminating claims about him (all while insisting that they can’t unveil their evidence against him because the case isn’t yet closed). If this latest leak is indicative of the FBI’s case against Ivins — “The top suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks was obsessed with a sorority that sat less than 100 yards away from a New Jersey mailbox where the toxin-laced letters were sent, authorities said today” — then it’s no wonder they are reluctant to tell the public the basis for their accusations against him.

dday has a good post up at Hullabaloo, digby’s place, on the Anthrax case too-


Skip to comment form

  1. A little early.

  2. Dr. Russel Byrne, a colleague of Ivins was on – get this – The Today Show. He laid out some pretty damning evidence and questions about all this.

    I hadn’t read all this before – but watching it certainly raised alot of questions for me.


  3. I find it interesting that an American might be the perpetratorno a foreign power/entity.

    Naturally when an American is found to be the possible suspect three seconds later somebody declares them mentally ill.

    Huh. Anybody remember Richard Jewell?

    • Edger on August 5, 2008 at 03:35

    the false reports linking anthrax to Iraq also came from the U.S. Government — from people with some type of significant links to the same facility responsible for the attacks themselves.

    They didn’t do 9/11.


  4. …there’s much more to come.  Thanks!

    • banger on August 5, 2008 at 16:19

    …it seem almost too suspicious. This is amateurish to the extreme. The story is utterly unbelievable as it has been portrayed so far. Is this an elaborate trick? Are they trying to fake us out? Or are they trying to fake themselves out? By that I mean are we seeing some internal sabotage within the FBI? I’m sorry to lay out all this nonsense but the story has me utterly confused.  

  5. with access to anthrax spores, commits suicide at the age of 62???? Isn’t 62 a significant milepoint for people with Ivins’ condition? Is it possible he was “encouraged” to commit suicide? Would his death conveniently deflect attention away from someone else? Who has anything to gain by his death?

    Somehow, I am suspicious of this…now why would I feel that way about the Bush-Cheney cabal?


    and written by an expert in bio weapons

    • Viet71 on August 6, 2008 at 02:13

    In the affermath, there were many deaths.

    Some (actually many) by suicide.

    Many by accident.

    This scientist killed himself?  Really?  How convenient.

    Certainly puts an end to the inquiry and the story.

    How convenient.

Comments have been disabled.