Len Colby Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 COntinue to totally disregard questions of HOW MANY people know about it , mass psychology of crisis in hierarchical media environment. Im sorry let me put it like even Richard Gere's Goebbels can understand it YOUR LOGIC SUCKS. SEE I USED THE WORD LOGIC, IMPLYING THINGS!This will be my last response to Craig, unless he types something of substance. I apologize for my role in detracting from the intention of this thread. Nate tell what concrete effects that were part of the Bush administrations agenda the Anthrax attacks made possible that 9/11 wasn‘t enough to justify and present evidence it was consistently tied by them or the media to Arab or Islamic groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 COntinue to totally disregard questions of HOW MANY people know about it , mass psychology of crisis in hierarchical media environment. Im sorry let me put it like even Richard Gere's Goebbels can understand it YOUR LOGIC SUCKS. SEE I USED THE WORD LOGIC, IMPLYING THINGS!This will be my last response to Craig, unless he types something of substance. I apologize for my role in detracting from the intention of this thread. Nate tell what concrete effects that were part of the Bush administrations agenda the Anthrax attacks made possible that 9/11 wasn‘t enough to justify and present evidence it was consistently tied by them or the media to Arab or Islamic groups. ----- Will get on it Len: but first a quick question before you and Craig are named Cochairs of the FCC: What percent of the US population would you estimate read about and discussed (with at least 1 fellow citizen) the AL Q. attacks of the Cole or others on Sptember 10th 2001? Same question for that Anthrax letters following September 11th? A rough estimate would suffice. I know you are in one the fairer corners of Brazil, but you seem to keep up with US public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Keith Olbermann recently interviewed Gerald Posner, author of Why America Slept; The Failure to Prevent 9/11. I've excerpted a couple of comments by Posner. POSNER: And, meanwhile, as you showed with McCain, back in just a month after 2001, they are already beating the war drums in the Republican Party that there might be a tie to this Anthrax attack to Iraq. There wasn't an iota of evidence to support that at the time. There isn't today. It was irresponsible at the time and it's irresponsible today. This man's death shows that, and that there's no answer from the Bush administration. They never had a lie leading up to the war in Iraq and scaring this country into it that they shied away from, and Anthrax was one of those that they embraced. and: POSNER: I have absolutely no doubt about that. (The government simply took advantage of the Anthrax letters to use it as a tool to build up a case to go to war in Iraq) From everything that I've done on my own investigation and following up from 2001, I'm now more convinced than ever that there were individuals inside the Bush administration and in the government that wanted the war in Iraq so badly, that they decided that if there was something that they could use to push it forward, they would. Anthrax fell into their lap, even if he is the deranged solo killer, they used it in order to scare this country and say Iraq is somebody we have to go after, and we did. According to Peter S. Canellos, staff writer for the Boston Globe: ....The significance of the anthrax attacks in shaping US policy in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has largely been forgotten. Enough time has passed since the frenzied days of October 2001 that unmasking the anthrax killer no longer seems to be of urgent importance. The attacks long ago stopped, and the sense of fear that enveloped the country in those days - with media personalities gulping the antibiotic Cipro to protect themselves - receded. But the slowly unfolding attacks - seven separate letters containing the deadly powder were sent to politicians and news organizations over a period of 21 days - greatly amplified the fears of average Americans just weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Were it not for the anthrax attacks, most people would have assumed that the United States faced just one enemy - the global terrorist network Al Qaeda - with a base in Afghanistan and Islamist allies in some other countries. The anthrax attacks suggested something different: That Al Qaeda's strike on New York and Washington had emboldened numerous enemies of the United States to launch attacks of their own with various methods, some as stealthy as sending biological weapons through the mail. The Bush administration didn't need much prompting to turn its attention from Afghanistan to Iraq, according to the many insider accounts published since then. The president, who was otherwise somewhat ignorant of the world, was well-briefed on the Iraqi threat dating from Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate his father. In addition, many of the president's neoconservative advisers had long believed that the "secular" Iraq would be a good place to implant democratic values. When the anthrax attacks occurred, Iraq was immediately fingered by some experts and many neoconservative hawks as a possible source; ABC News quoted three unnamed government sources as saying the powder in the letters matched the type produced in Iraq. Even though most serious analysts were highly skeptical that the tainted letters came from Hussein, the mere possibility that Iraq could have maintained a stockpile of anthrax was enough to convince many people that it was a looming threat. It's impossible to know how much, if at all, this speculation influenced the Bush administration's subsequent decision to confront Iraq. Perhaps Iraq was so much on the minds of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that no other trigger was needed. But to many others in Congress, the media, and the general public, the anthrax attacks made the administration's later arguments seem more credible: If an enemy of the United States could start killing people by sending powder through the mail, there might indeed be a justification for more precipitous action. In the end, of course, there was no anthrax found in Iraq - and no weapons of mass destruction of any sort. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...on_toward_iraq/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 (edited) It is starting to look as though the govt didn't want to have to pay out more millions, as they had to for Mr. Hatfill, so have decided to 'solve' the case by pinning everything on Ivins. The question now becomes 'was he suicided'? Edited August 5, 2008 by Pamela McElwain-Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Keith Olbermann recently interviewed Gerald Posner, author of Why America Slept; The Failure to Prevent 9/11. I've excerpted a couple of comments by Posner. POSNER: I have absolutely no doubt about that. (The government simply took advantage of the Anthrax letters to use it as a tool to build up a case to go to war in Iraq) From everything that I've done on my own investigation and following up from 2001, I'm now more convinced than ever that there were individuals inside the Bush administration and in the government that wanted the war in Iraq so badly, that they decided that if there was something that they could use to push it forward, they would. Anthrax fell into their lap, even if he is the deranged solo killer, they used it in order to scare this country and say Iraq is somebody we have to go after, and we did. I don't know enough about the anthrax circumstances to say who did what or where or when, but that quote from Posner is very plausible IMO. They took advantage of 9/11. They took advantage of possible WMDs. They'd probably do the same with the anthrax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Why were the toxic envelops mailed from Princeton? http://www.wlwt.com/news/17099009/detail.html FBI: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5icCsDXb...xWio0wD92CDM380 Closure: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion Widow: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=...tnG=Search+News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 It is starting to look as though the govt didn't want to have to pay out more millions, as they had to for Mr. Hatfill, so have decided to 'solve' the case by pinning everything on Ivins. The question now becomes 'was he suicided'? The U.S. government may become more vulnerable to other lawsuits: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYq-3oD...1w7Q7wD92CDF6O1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 It is starting to look as though the govt didn't want to have to pay out more millions, as they had to for Mr. Hatfill, so have decided to 'solve' the case by pinning everything on Ivins. The question now becomes 'was he suicided'? I think a live patsy is a very dangerous thing. That's been the conventional wisdom in the USA since 1963. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 COntinue to totally disregard questions of HOW MANY people know about it , mass psychology of crisis in hierarchical media environment. Im sorry let me put it like even Richard Gere's Goebbels can understand it YOUR LOGIC SUCKS. SEE I USED THE WORD LOGIC, IMPLYING THINGS!This will be my last response to Craig, unless he types something of substance. I apologize for my role in detracting from the intention of this thread. Nate tell what concrete effects that were part of the Bush administrations agenda the Anthrax attacks made possible that 9/11 wasn‘t enough to justify and present evidence it was consistently tied by them or the media to Arab or Islamic groups. ----- Will get on it Len: but first a quick question before you and Craig are named Cochairs of the FCC: What percent of the US population would you estimate read about and discussed (with at least 1 fellow citizen) the AL Q. attacks of the Cole or others on Sptember 10th 2001? Same question for that Anthrax letters following September 11th? A rough estimate would suffice. I know you are in one the fairer corners of Brazil, but you seem to keep up with US public opinion. ----------- FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials BY JAMES GORDON MEEK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Saturday, August 2nd 2008, 6:32 PM WASHINGTON - In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned. After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide. "They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News. On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together." But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."jmeek@nydailynews.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 They say they are going to end the case, and release investigative records that will show the victims and their families that the case is solved. This is a very bizarre precident. And there's Bushwaller's Irish Pub in Frederick, Md., where the Detrick scientists spent their happy hours. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/washingt...rax.html?ref=us http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,6796393.story He had been told by authorities that they were preparing to seek his indictment on capital murder charges. The federal law enforcement official said that even though no indictment was obtained, a federal grand jury had been hearing final testimony in the case and authorities had expected that Ivins would be charged within several weeks. xxxxxxx http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../EDA7125L7C.DTL Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate, Inc sfgate_get_fprefs();The terrorists find all sorts of reasons to hate us. On Tuesday came word that the deadliest biological assault on the United States may be linked to the rejection of the terror suspect by a Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority sister decades ago. That is offered as an explanation of why the accused U.S. Army bio-warfare scientist made a seven-hour roundtrip from his home to mail anthrax-laced letters from a mailbox near the sorority's Princeton University office, according to the Associated Press. What we learned last week, after the suicide death of Bruce E. Ivins, was disquieting enough without the twisted love angle. If you can believe the recent leaks from the FBI on its most important unsolved crime that killed five and sickened 17, immobilized the federal government and traumatized the nation, it was a clean-shaven, white, God-fearing Catholic guy who done it. Despite a government anxious to find yet another example of Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11, it quickly became clear to experts that the anthrax used in the only WMD attack on our nation was a sophisticated product traced to our own biological weapons labs. This is not surprising, because the United States has long been a leader in this field. Our ostensible reason for developing the world's most sophisticated arsenal of deadly biological weapons is that the United States needs to learn how to prevent such attacks from deranged outsiders. Now we have yet another reminder that the enemy may be us, and that at least some of the folks who develop weapons like to find occasions to use them. In this case, the terrorist the FBI was about to charge with homicide was a nut case who nonetheless received the highest security clearance to work on the most dangerous of weapons deep within our own military-industrial complex. This is yet another disappointment for those writing the basic Bush administration narrative in which the terrorist is always some Islamo-fascist guy. That's the assigned role that Saddam Hussein failed at so miserably. Remember when New York Times reporter Judith Miller was breathlessly reporting every sighting of a rusting Iraqi RV as one of Hussein's biological weapons labs to justify the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Gosh, how the military-industrial complex must miss the Soviet Union, which could be trusted to match us in the high-tech game of dispensing mass death. Of course our government, which has never disowned the right to build and use nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, has long insisted that we alone are to be trusted with the creation of those devilish devices. Others are judged either too irrational, evil or merely incompetent to be allowed WMD, whereas we alone, with the unique experience of having killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, pose no threat. That others might not see it our way, particularly after recent incidents, such as the missing nukes that crossed the United States on that errant B-52 flight, or the anthrax attack allegedly conducted by one of our top bio-weapons scientists, is understandable. The larger problem is that we no longer take the threat of WMD as seriously as we should. We focused on the nonexistent WMD in Iraq while ignoring the proliferation of nuclear technology from Pakistan to North Korea, Iran and Libya under the guidance of A.Q. Khan, father of that nation's popularly revered Islamic bomb. As former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in his memoir, the Bush administration only seized upon the WMD issue in Iraq because it was convenient: "The United States did not go to war in Iraq solely because of WMD. In my view, I doubt it was even the principal cause. Yet it was the public face that was put on it." The public face of terrorism was a bearded Muslim armed with WMD. No wonder we were caught off guard when the only person to ever attack us with WMD turns out to be an active congregant at St. John the Evangelist Church and a highly trusted employee of the U.S. military. Not that our sleuths weren't forewarned. As Ivins' therapist, social worker Jean Duley, reported to the Maryland District Court last month in a hearing to obtain a restraining order: "As far back as the year 2000, the respondent has actually attempted to murder several other people ... he is a revenge killer when he feels that he's been slighted ...especially towards women.... He has been forensically diagnosed by several top psychiatrists as a sociopathic, homicidal killer." In any case, he is one of us. Robert Scheer is author of a new book, "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America." This article appeared on page B - 9 of the San Francisco Chronicle xxxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 COntinue to totally disregard questions of HOW MANY people know about it , mass psychology of crisis in hierarchical media environment. Im sorry let me put it like even Richard Gere's Goebbels can understand it YOUR LOGIC SUCKS. SEE I USED THE WORD LOGIC, IMPLYING THINGS!This will be my last response to Craig, unless he types something of substance. I apologize for my role in detracting from the intention of this thread. Nate tell what concrete effects that were part of the Bush administrations agenda the Anthrax attacks made possible that 9/11 wasn‘t enough to justify and present evidence it was consistently tied by them or the media to Arab or Islamic groups. ----- Will get on it Len: but first a quick question before you and Craig are named Cochairs of the FCC: What percent of the US population would you estimate read about and discussed (with at least 1 fellow citizen) the AL Q. attacks of the Cole or others on Sptember 10th 2001? Same question for that Anthrax letters following September 11th? A rough estimate would suffice. I know you are in one the fairer corners of Brazil, but you seem to keep up with US public opinion. ----------- FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials BY JAMES GORDON MEEK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Saturday, August 2nd 2008, 6:32 PM WASHINGTON - In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned. After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide. "They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News. On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together." But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."jmeek@nydailynews.com Except that the invasion of Afganistan began on Oct. 7th and the FBI had said they saw "no connection whatsoever" on the 12th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 COntinue to totally disregard questions of HOW MANY people know about it , mass psychology of crisis in hierarchical media environment. Im sorry let me put it like even Richard Gere's Goebbels can understand it YOUR LOGIC SUCKS. SEE I USED THE WORD LOGIC, IMPLYING THINGS!This will be my last response to Craig, unless he types something of substance. I apologize for my role in detracting from the intention of this thread. Nate tell what concrete effects that were part of the Bush administrations agenda the Anthrax attacks made possible that 9/11 wasn‘t enough to justify and present evidence it was consistently tied by them or the media to Arab or Islamic groups. ----- Will get on it Len: but first a quick question before you and Craig are named Cochairs of the FCC: What percent of the US population would you estimate read about and discussed (with at least 1 fellow citizen) the AL Q. attacks of the Cole or others on Sptember 10th 2001? Same question for that Anthrax letters following September 11th? A rough estimate would suffice. I know you are in one the fairer corners of Brazil, but you seem to keep up with US public opinion. ----------- FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials BY JAMES GORDON MEEK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Saturday, August 2nd 2008, 6:32 PM WASHINGTON - In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned. After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide. "They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News. On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together." But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."jmeek@nydailynews.com Any port in a storm eh Nate? You last claim was that "they" needed this to be Saddam so it would appear the attacks were from a second source. And now you tell us "they" wanted to pin it on AQ. Maybe they still were thinking about the Cole...... Consistencey not your forte? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 COntinue to totally disregard questions of HOW MANY people know about it , mass psychology of crisis in hierarchical media environment. Im sorry let me put it like even Richard Gere's Goebbels can understand it YOUR LOGIC SUCKS. SEE I USED THE WORD LOGIC, IMPLYING THINGS!This will be my last response to Craig, unless he types something of substance. I apologize for my role in detracting from the intention of this thread. Nate tell what concrete effects that were part of the Bush administrations agenda the Anthrax attacks made possible that 9/11 wasn‘t enough to justify and present evidence it was consistently tied by them or the media to Arab or Islamic groups. ----- Will get on it Len: but first a quick question before you and Craig are named Cochairs of the FCC: What percent of the US population would you estimate read about and discussed (with at least 1 fellow citizen) the AL Q. attacks of the Cole or others on Sptember 10th 2001? Same question for that Anthrax letters following September 11th? A rough estimate would suffice. I know you are in one the fairer corners of Brazil, but you seem to keep up with US public opinion. ----------- FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials BY JAMES GORDON MEEK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Saturday, August 2nd 2008, 6:32 PM WASHINGTON - In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned. After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide. "They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News. On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together." But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."jmeek@nydailynews.com Any port in a storm eh Nate? You last claim was that "they" needed this to be Saddam so it would appear the attacks were from a second source. And now you tell us "they" wanted to pin it on AQ. Maybe they still were thinking about the Cole...... Consistencey not your forte? MSNBC's Keith Olbermann of Countdown fame had *The Poz* (Gerald Posner of CASE CLOSED fame) on his show last Friday and this past Monday discussing the subject (evidently Posner wrote a book about it) --- The Poz has shed a bit of light on the Ft. Dietrich Scientist and the case. Seems the "scientists' therapist" has quite a few questions that need answering -- I suspect she's lawyered up by now... if not, FIND one, hon, you're gonna need one! The Poz is on the job... a link to Olbermann's (program) website (not sure there is an archive of past shows) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 David, The Poz did write a book about Germ Warfare. As a specialist on Fort Detrick AND the JFK Assassination, I wonder what he has to say about Col. Jose Rivera? Also, latest bare all from FBI: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0644608720080806 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) David,The Poz did write a book about Germ Warfare. As a specialist on Fort Detrick AND the JFK Assassination, I wonder what he has to say about Col. Jose Rivera? Also, latest bare all from FBI: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0644608720080806 Hey Bill.... If you get on the MSNBC link in the next few hours you can see Olbermann's interview with Ron -Pulitzer Prize- Suskind (re his new book: The Way of the World). Very interesting piece. Also, 2 weeks ago I heard from one of my LV connections concerning our mutual 'interview' interest. I was told, "perhaps in a month or so." We have our answer. Sorry! Edited August 6, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now