Bob Goodman

I asked you to; "promise me that you'll start to use "Butcher of Tiblisi" in casual conversations with your friends, on the phone and in your posts." "Only if you promise to refer to Putin as the Butcher of the Kremlin in the same circumstances" Len, you can't use the same name I made up. First of all it has zero ring to it, Four words not three. There's no rhythm to it. Nobody would use it. But the most important thing is, it's the same thing as mine!! That's just copying. That's what a my little brother would do. Look if you can't make up an original nickname for Putin for me to use, one that's any good, that is. Tell you what, I'll make one up for you and show you how easy it is. Might make a headline too, you never know.And I'll use it too but. it will be yours, ok? Here goes. ummm....."Vlad the Merciless, Czar of the East"!..Yeah, I Like it! See the rhythm? Catchy, I think. I will never refer to him as President Putin, or Comrade, or whatever again. "Vlad the Mericless pounds Tibilsi... Again!". Now that's a headline! You promised, remember that.

....What interests me more is the theory that the attacks were some sort of government plot. ... How come, Len? Why are you interested in putting out that particular fire? ....My main problem with that theory is that they don`t seem to have SIGNIFICANTLY advanced the Busho-con agenda... Taking the measure of things again. What is it with you and numbers, Len? What a silly thing to argue. Arguments like that just go round and round and lead nowhere. You must know that. Could you explain why you like to dwell on stuff like that even though you're smart enough to know it's not a resolvable issue? It distracts from the thread, don't you think? It really doesn't contribute anything new or give an orginal perspective, nor does it shed any additional light on the life and death of Dr. Ivins, does it? John led off the thread with great promise, subsequent posts were insightful. I want more information and perhaps a fresh perspective of the case. All given on good faith, I'd hope. I'm interested in the psychological ramifications of the attacks on the American psyche and their collective response to it. What do you want? To put out fires? You say "What interests me more is the theory that the attacks were some sort of government plot". Not, I assume to bring evidence to support that contention, but to draw out that idea in someone and then argue the negative, right? What purpose could that possibly serve, Len? What can be learned from that? I just don't see what is gained by that and why you would be doing something like that in the first place. But, it's really none of my business, I guess. Everyone likes something different. I don't like smugness or frothy emotional arguments that draw out the passions and therefore the worst in people. It's repellent. I'm just curious, that's all. Don't mean to pry.

...."I’m not defending Saakashvili’s invasion. If I were Georgian I think I be pushing for him to stepdown.".... I wouldn't be suprised if soon the people of Georgia are in the streets trying to excrete Saakashvili, the "Butcher of Tsblisi" and his henchmen. Take a look at that cabinet sometime, btw. I got a laugh when I did. I think it's a great nickname I coined for him, don't you? "The Butcher of Tsblisi". I know it wasn't Tbilisi that he unleashed his Artillery on, it was Tskhinvali. But that doesn't have anywhere near the ring to it as "The Butcher of Tbilisi", don't you agree? And i-i-it's the Capital, right?...that kinda justifies it, sort of. Anywho, it sure does that have a nice ring to it. Feel free to help popularize it, it would be neat if it spread fast, wouldn't it? One thing about Saakashvili that you notice right away, besides the fact that he's certainly ready for "The Not Ready for Prime Time Players" and that he is a perfect replica of a 200 pound block of wood. After a few minutes, if you're preceptive, you'd also notice that you'd have to go a long way to find someone in whom the banality of evil was so well defined. His banality is at least as well defined as the orginal person to merit that nomenclature. I hope that my nickname for him takes off. It'd be cool. to see "The Butcher of Tbilisi" on the front page of a newspaper someday. I'd be so proud, can you help? Can you start refering to him as the "Butcher of Tsblisi" to your family and friends around the world that you call? You must spend a lot on phone bills. Or, if you could say, the "so-called Butcher of Tbilisi" would be even better. When you get a so-called in front of a phrase, let's face it, you've arrived. And the perfect words that would go with it in a front page headline would be "Convicted of War Crimes on all counts", don't you think? Phrases go together like peas and carrots, don't they? ...."I believe it was a stupid unnecessary escalation...." August 20, 2008 Ruters used a similar euphemism, theirs was "Conflict between Georgia and Russia erupted when Georgia tried to reimpose control over the breakaway..(region)". "Reimpose control", "Escalation"...and hundreds, yes hundreds of other euphemisms like it are all over the so-called MSM. If you ever decided you wanted to compose a Dictionary of Euphemisms for an indiscrimanate suprise artillery attack in the dead of night on a sleeping defenseless City, now is the time!! Be a piece of cake, the media already did all the legwork! Just pick the gold! Ahhh, fortune passes everywhere. You see, Len, when one believes that a 5 year old child killed by a direct hit from artillery fired by a suprise artillery attack in the dead of night should properly be refered to as an "escalation". Len, thinking like that puts someone not far from madness. Occupational hazard in some jobs though, yours? But to tell the truth, Len, using euphemism's like that is a sign of a socipathic thought process. Let's go to work some more, then you say you think... "....that South Ossetia should be allowed to become independent but all the involved parties the Ossetians, Russians, Georgians and their respective supporters all acted and continue to act irresponsibly causing widespread death, injury, displacement and disruption of innocent civilians. Unfortunately it seems most people only take notice of or care about the suffering of one side...." Oh my God, Len.!!! Except for placing the blame to the ones who initiated the violence ( such a minor point), you are right there! Run with it now. ...As for your benevolent peace keepers, the Russians...." Len, I just told you it was an international force, there by treaty signed be the Georgians more then a decade ago.And the coaltion peacekeeping forces were composed not only of Russians but Georgians and...somebody else, I don't recall. Hey, you have any interns sitting around doodling that could look that up? I'm just too lazy. And, did I somehow infer that I thought of them as benevolent? Why is everyone in my life always putting words in my mouth?? That happen to you a lot, Len? Those coalition peacekeepers were no more or less noble than any other peacekeepers stationed by different armies, by different treatys around the world. Those dirty, rotten (happy now?) peacekeepers, or you could call them, sacrificial lambs, ( Russia, Georgia...and lets say South Ossetian, whatever they were) were stationed in town, sleeping in their barracks when the sneak attack occured, were there because of these treaty obligations. The "Butcher of Tsblisi" broke the treaty in a sneak attack and killed the peacekeepers (maybe the Georgian peacekeepers too, not sure, get those interns working, will ya?). And you know they had to be at least as benevolent as some of our own allied nation's "occupation" forces. My God, how could they not be? I'm sure they will follow up on their commitments a hundredfold more then some of occupiers that we support. You know who I'm talking about, don't you, Len? And finally this. ...You also might want to do some research into the proposed natural gas and oil pipelines through Georgia that would circumvent Russians regional monopoly on those commodities if you really think the Russians concerns were only humanitarian, why do you think the US is so “buddy-buddy” with Georgia in the first place?... There you go again, Len. Engaging in some bizarre conspiracy theory. So tedious. But I will look into it if you do something for me. You're like a numbers-on-the-phone kind of guy, right? Call somebody, or whatever and get the me number and tonnage of artillery shells that struck Tskhinvali in the sneak attack. Number and size of the rounds would be the best!! While you're at it, get number of children under 12 years old who were killed in their sleep wearing spiderman pajama's. See, we can help each other! Got any kids yourself, Len? I've found that they really teach you how to properly view the world. They get your head on straight unless it's just too, too twisted. Couldn't recommend them more. And promise me that you'll start to use "Butcher of Tiblisi" in casual conversations with your friends, on the phone and in your posts.Thanks. I'll get you back for it, really. Meanwhile Peter says, ...So Georgia did bomb civilians and should be censured by the UN et al. ... He bombed civilian so he should be censured, Peter? That's it? No crimes against humanity? Nothing else? Censure, that's not even a slap on the wrists, is it? And how his method? Sneak nightime attack surly in aggravating what ever he is guilty of. The peacekeepers, Peter, how do you justify the deaths of the peacekeepers. Maybe the Russians were just supposed to take that, the deaths of their peacekeepers. Just watch them die and not respond. Is that right? The Butcher sure thought so. Brilliant guy, Columbia, you know. Might have a big library even. Don't look like he ever throws anything away either. Or, maybe you think that since the total number of deaths were low, so it's ok. People and numbers = arguments without resolution. To me, a crime against humanity can have but a single victim. My advice is, don't get caught up with numbers, Peter. It demonstrates naiveté. Remember, "figures don't lie, but liars figure". It only gives advantage to the other side in moral arguments. Numbers give them something to argue about instead forcing them to focus on the central issues of the argument, thus they seek to obfuscate the argument without refuting the thesis. Cheap, Stoic trick. Little wonder no one liked them. The Stoics, that is. People used to chase them out of their villages, I think. Regardless of numbers, there is no argument regarding Saakashvili, the so-called "Butcher of Tbilisi"'s culpulbility in the sneak attack. You know or any of your ilk give any clear reasons why you believe the Russians are acting in bad faith? Just supportable facts, not conspiracy theory. Left wing conspiracy theories, Right wing conspiracy theories. Please, it just get's so tiresome, so trite.

If you want to bump up those figures of yours, Len. You might want to call some of your friends from Tskhinvali. You know, the sleepy little provincial capital of South Ossetia that the Georgian Army snuck up on in the middle of the night and shelled. Shelled with artillery, for God's sake!!! Killed 1500 of his own Georgian citizens that night, our guy Saakashvili did (whatever passports they held, they were Georgians) according to the Russians, anyway. Those liars. Probably less, in fact, who knows? Let's say only 800-1200 killed. You get those numbers, Len? And these, town of 30,000/1500 killed/Percent of town destroyed/remaining population in province 50,000. What's that add up to? You do the math, Len. You're the numbers guy. And, mind you, our boy was just getting started. He sacked that town and now had the rest of the province to burn. Those dastardly Russians had the unmitigated gall to then INVADE (omg) and prevent further loss of life within an area that their peacekeepers died and where they were required by treaty, signed by Georgia, to maintain a peacekeeping force! What nerve. Who do they think they are, the good guys in white hats? Cowboys????? Yeah, gives them civilians and peacekeepers a nice wake up call, artillery will. Can't get more indiscriminate then artillery, you know. Artillery make it all fair, you're fair, aren't you, Len? Under pounding artillery, aimed by incompents in the dark of night, everyone has the same chance of living or dying. Men, women, children, babies....babies...and peacekeepers. Yeah, by treaty the Russians and Georgians had peacekeepers asleep in the town that night. Half of them were killed? Peacekeepers? By treaty? Yep, Russian, Georgian...and somebody else...maybe South Ossetians, Ukranians, I'm not sure. I don't know if any of the Georgian contingent of the peacekeeping force was killed by their own army that dark, silent night or if they were nice enough to let them know in advance to get the hell out of there. Either way, wouldn't suprise me, casualties of war, nature of sneak attacks, I guess. It's info that would be kept under wraps over here in the US in any event. What if half our peacekeepers were killed by a sneak artillery attack in the middle of the night without warning? How would our countries react? Anyway, see if those numbers amount to anything except happy days are here again for the MICC. Yeah, give them a call. Nothing better to do, right? Oh, btw, do you know what a direct hit of an artillery does to a 5 year old sleeping child, do you care? Maybe as long as there is a purpose, huh? Those purposes, somebodys purposes, sure not mine, sigh. So many times, I'm ashamed to be a human being. You see, I guess I'm just a self-hating human being so naturally you can just disregard anything I say. Just listen to the mockingbird, listen to the mockingbird.

I know I am setting myself up for a scolding, not to mention a whupping by responding to you, Len, but look, you don't have to believe me that everything wasn't rosey anymore in the ole US of A after the Anthrax attacks. Here's something from the August 15, 2008 article in The American Conservtive in which I will embolden the specfic clues...err....points! Yeah, points. This well-written article gives a little more insight into the details of the operation, or whatever ((they ask some good questions (if you take my meaning...read carefully)...Take the time to read...Wink!)) as they stand now. The embolds are mine, enjoy: August 15, 2008 The Anthrax Files The FBI claims to have caught the killer. But so much evidence has been neglected or mishandled that many experts still have doubts. Christopher Ketcham Seven years after the anthrax attacks shut down Congress, sowed panic nationwide, killed five, sickened 17, and allowed neocon propagandists to variously blame al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the FBI claims to have gotten its man. ( (you see the sowed part? Just read a little, my man, and you can find plenty more ...especially in the older stuff...From here on, I enboldened some of the parts of the puzzle. Where do they go? You tell me...please...(bg)) But the official story doesn’t fully accord with the facts. Any reasonable assessment of the evidence suggests that the same powerful interests that might have been served by prolonging the investigation would have had a stake in finally bringing it to a tidy conclusion. That doesn’t mean that the killer was caught. The acknowledged certainty is that the anthrax letters weren’t the work of Islamists or Iraqis. The attacks were perpetrated by someone with high-level access to U.S. government supplies of the deadly bacteria. Ground zero of the investigation has long been the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland. But the lab had dropped from the headlines until recently, much as the FBI had seemingly allowed its investigation to languish. The first week of August, the popular press got back in the game, reporting the apparent suicide of USAMRIID scientist Bruce E. Ivins, alleged to be the sole operator behind the anthrax letters. The Associated Press reported that Ivins, who is said to have killed himself on July 29 with an overdose of prescription Tylenol mixed with codeine, was “one of the government’s leading scientists researching vaccines and cures for anthrax exposure.” According to the AP, he was “brilliant but troubled.” His lawyer, Paul Kemp, says that Ivins..... passed a pair of polygraph tests....... and that the grand jury investigating the case was weeks from returning an indictment. Yet within days of his death, the bureau announced that it was beginning the ...shutdown.... of its “Amerithrax” investigation. “Anthrax Case a Wrap,” blared the Daily News on Aug. 4. In April, it was reported that the FBI had been focusing on as many as four suspects. Fox News identified them as a “former deputy commander,” presumably in the U.S. Army, a “leading anthrax scientist,” and “a microbiologist.” .....The fourth suspect was given no description...... Now the bureau is “confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks,” according to the assurances of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. The Ivins news came close on the heels of a far quieter announcement on June 27 that the FBI’s investigation of the previous top anthrax suspect, Steven Hatfill, also a USAMRIID bioresearcher, ended not with a trial and conviction but with a $5.8 million settlement effectively admitting that the bureau had the wrong guy. Hatfill had been hounded by investigators for three years, his career and reputation ruined. Ivins was subjected to similar treatment. According to the AP, he complained to friends that agents had “stalked” him and his family. They offered his son $2.5 million and “a sports car of his choice” to rat out his father. They approached his hospitalized daughter to turn evidence on him, plying her at bedside with pictures of the murdered anthrax victims and telling her, “This is what your father did.” W. Russell Byrne, Ivins’s supervisor at USAMRIID, told the AP that Ivins, 62, was emotionally broken by the FBI’s behavior: “One person said he’d sit at his desk and weep.” Francis Boyle, a professor of law at the University of Illinois who drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act signed by President George H.W. Bush, advised the FBI in its initial investigation of the anthrax letters. Along with several other American bioweapons experts—among them Jonathan King, professor of molecular biology at MIT, and Barbara Rosenberg, who studied biowarfare with the Federation of American Scientists—Boyle warned early on that the spores issued from inside a U.S. research operation, possibly one that was classified. He provided the FBI with lists of scientists, contractors, and laboratories that had worked on anthrax projects, but he is skeptical of Ivins as the lone killer: “The Feds pursued the same strategy against Ivins as they did against Hatfill—persecute him until he broke, which Ivins did and Hatfill did not. Dead men tell no tales.” Ivins, says Boyle, just doesn’t fit the bill. “It does not appear that he had the technological sophistication to manufacture this super weapons-grade anthrax, which would have included aerosolization, silicon coating, and an electrostatic charge.” Jeffrey Adamovicz, who directed the bacteriology division at Fort Detrick in 2003 and 2004, told McClatchy that the anthrax mailed to Sen. Tom Daschle was “so concentrated and so consistent and so clean that I would assert that Bruce could not have done that part.” Following the release of the FBI’s public case against Ivins, the New York Times editorialized that “there is no direct evidence of his guilt” and decried the “lack of hard, incontrovertible proof.” The Washington Post called the case “admittedly circumstantial.” Investigators failed to place Ivins in New Jersey on the dates in September and October 2001 when the letters were reportedly mailed from a Princeton location. They swabbed his residence, locker, several cars, the tools in his laboratory, and his office space, but found no trace of anthrax that genetically matched the bacteria in the letters. Indeed, some of the evidence—all circumstantial, none forensic—was downright laughable. Ivins at one time maintained a mailbox under an assumed name where he received pornographic magazines. He had once been “obsessed” with a Princeton sorority because of a failed college romance, and the Princeton mailbox where one of the letters originated was located within 100 yards of a storage facility used by the sorority—in a location Ivins apparently last visited 27 years ago. He drank. He made homicidal statements to a mental-health support group. He wrote rambling letters to the editor of his local paper. How any of this motivated Bruce Ivins to kill fellow Americans with a bioweapon is not established. Moreover, his former colleagues have repeatedly told the media that, as far as they are aware, ....Ivins didn’t know how to weaponize anthrax........... He was a vaccine specialist, not a weaponizer. The assumption is that Ivins kept his weaponizing skills secret from his coworkers. But how did he learn those skills? Perhaps colleagues at Ft. Detrick provided the help in casual conversation. Yet there’s not the slightest indication that during his years at Ft. Detrick Ivins even once asked fellow scientists about weaponizing techniques. Nor is it clear why Ivins—a registered Democrat—would single out Sens. Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle to receive lethal letters. Interestingly, both had been critical impediments to passage of the Patriot Act. The first wave of anthrax mail, sent Sept. 18, 2001, targeted major media; the second round, posted Oct. 9, went to Congress. On Oct. 25, amid widespread panic, the act passed. Yet it is improbable that a mad scientist would specialize in such targeted political activity—or that he personally benefited from the repercussions. Many others did, however. “In the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event,” Salon’s Glenn Greenwald writes. “It was really the anthrax letters that severely ratcheted up the fear levels and created the climate that would dominate in this country for the next several years … that created the impression that social order itself was genuinely threatened by Islamic radicalism.” By Oct. 28, ABC was reporting, “four well-placed and separate sources have told ABC News that initial tests on the anthrax by the U.S. Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have........ detected trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite and silica”.........—bentonite being a hallmark of the Iraqi weapons program. (In 2007, ABC admitted that no bentonite was ever detected but refused to unmask its sources.) “Some are going to be quick to pick up on this as a smoking gun,” Peter Jennings said at the time. The administration’s acolytes did not disappoint. William Kristol and Robert Kagan complained, “What will it take for the FBI and the CIA to start connecting the dots here? A signed confession from Saddam?” “The leading supplier suspect has to be Iraq,” the Wall Street Journal opined, “The government has to do everything possible to destroy the anthrax threat at its state-sponsored source.” Added Laurie Mylroie in National Review, “Iraqi intelligence was intimately involved in the 9/11 attacks and [the] military grade anthrax sent to Senators Leahy and Daschle almost certainly came from an Iraqi lab.” As late as 2007, long after it became apparent that the anthrax was homegrown, outlets like Fox News continued to insist on a Middle Eastern link. Those making the case for war in Iraq and seeking to advance the administration’s domestic security agenda had good reason to resist a swift resolution to the case—especially one involving an American perpetrator. Whether by suggestion or as a result of its own incompetence, the FBI obliged. As early as November 2001, the New York Times was reporting that the bureau’s “missteps” were “hampering the inquiry.” Indeed, from the beginning, the FBI has been in possession of a key piece of evidence that it apparently ignored. Among the first suspects to come into the FBI’s sights was an Egyptian-born ex-USAMRIID biologist named Ayaad Assaad. He appeared on the radar because of an anonymous letter sent to the bureau identifying him as part of a terrorist cell possibly linked to the anthrax attacks. Yet, according to the Hartford Courant, the FBI did not attempt to track down the author of the letter, “despite its curious timing, coming a matter of days before the existence of anthrax-laced mail became known.” Assaad was quickly exonerated by FBI investigators, and the matter swiftly dropped—though the letter may have provided the best piece of evidence in the case. It was sent prior to the arrival of the anthrax letters, suggesting foreknowledge of the attacks, and its language was similar to that of the deadly mail. Moreover, it displayed an intimate knowledge of USAMRIID operations, suggesting that it came from within the limited ranks of Fort Detrick researchers —a relatively small group with access to and expertise in weaponized anthrax. The FBI has refused to make a copy of the letter publicly available—or even to give one to Assaad himself. It did, however, share the contents with a Vassar College professor and language forensics expert named Don Foster, who famously fingered Joe Klein as the anonymous author behind Primary Colors and helped to catch the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bomber. After reading news reports, he requested a copy of the letter, and, following his review of documents written by “some 40 USAMRIID employees,” Foster “found writings by a female officer that looked like a perfect match,” according to an article he authored in the October 2003 Vanity Fair. When he brought this seemingly crucial clue to the attention of the FBI’s anthrax task force, however, the bureau declined to follow up. According to Foster, the senior FBI agent on the case had never even heard of the Assaad letter. (For the record, Foster isn’t an unimpeachable source. He strayed from his area of professional expertise and published unrelated circumstantial evidence in his Vanity Fair piece that wrongly fingered Hatfill, who sued the magazine, which settled on undisclosed terms.) ..................“The letter-writer clearly knew my entire background, my training in both chemical and biological agents, my security clearance, what floor I work on, that I have two sons, what train I take to work, and where I live,” .............Assaad told reporter Laura Rozen. Since he was almost immediately cleared, attempting to frame him served no purpose, except to indulge a personal enmity. To that end, Assaad suggested that the FBI question the pair of USAMRIID colleagues most likely to carry a grudge against him, Marian Rippy and Philip Zack, who years earlier had been reprimanded for sending Assad a racist poem. Though the Courant reported video evidence of Zack making after-hours trips to labs where pathogens were stored, there is no record of the FBI ever investigating him or Rippy, a colleague with whom he was having an extramarital affair. The FBI’s failures don’t end there. The anthrax used in the terror attacks has been identified as similar to strains held at laboratories in Ames, Iowa. The Ames database, maintained and overseen by Iowa State University, was a comprehensive culture collection of some 100 vials gathered since 1928. It listed all parties, agencies, and labs that acquired its anthrax strains. When researchers, fearful of terrorists breaching the lab, offered to destroy the anthrax cultures, the FBI did not object. “This was an astonishing thing to do,” Francis Boyle tells me. “It should have been preserved as evidence. This was a roadmap of everybody and anybody that had gotten access to develop the super-strain that hit Leahy and Daschle.” Questions about the Ames database point to a bigger concern: where was the weapons-grade anthrax in the letters produced? If the FBI had an airtight case that the anthrax killer worked at Ft. Detrick—thanks to new DNA techniques supposedly linking the spores to that lab—surely the Assaad letter would be a key piece of evidence in the case against Ivins. At the very least it would have to be explained away rather than ignored. Another possibility is that the attacks didn’t originate at USAMRIID at all, and the FBI has once again accused an innocent man. Ironically, it was Ivins who, among other investigators, was initially tasked by the FBI with analyzing the anthrax in the letters. Dr. Gerry Andrews, a professor of microbiology at the University of Wyoming and former colleague of Ivins at Ft. Detrick, wrote in the New York Times, “When [ivins’s] team analyzed the powder, they found it to be a startlingly refined weapons-grade anthrax spore preparation, the likes of which had never been seen before by personnel at Fort Detrick.” Granted, Andrews has an interest in exonerating his former lab, but he goes on to make an astonishing allegation: “It is extremely improbable that this type of preparation could ever have been produced at Fort Detrick, certainly not of the grade and quality found in that envelope.” If the scientists at Fort Detrick did not have the capacity to produce this kind of anthrax, who did? Boyle suggests an answer in his book, Biowarfare and Terrorism. He alleges that the evidence in the anthrax spores, if properly pursued, would have “led directly back to a secret but officially sponsored U.S. government biowarfare program that was illegal and criminal, in violation of [the] Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.” This might be easily dismissed as conspiracy theory except that a source no less reputable than the New York Times published a similar charge on Sept. 4, 2001: “the United States has embarked on a program of secret research on biological weapons that, some officials say, tests the limits of the global treaty banning such weapons. … earlier this year, administration officials said, the Pentagon drew up plans to engineer genetically a potentially more potent variant of the bacterium that causes anthrax.” Boyle suggests possible perps: the Pentagon, the CIA, or perhaps private sector scientists acting under covert contract with the government. According to a 2002 BBC report, the CIA may indeed have been investigating “methods of sending anthrax through the mail which went madly out of control.” “The shocking assertion,” offered the BBC, “is that a key member of the covert operation may have removed, refined and eventually posted weapons-grade anthrax.” Boyle theorizes that the FBI’s investigation was purposely bungled as part of a cover-up. He argues that the legal process ensuing from a thorough investigation “would, in a court of law, directly implicate the United States government, its agencies, its officials, and its agents, in conducting illegal and criminal biowarfare research.” But if such a program exists, why would anyone associated with it risk exposure by sending crude anthrax letters? Perhaps for the oldest motive in the world: money. In the wake of the postal terror, biowarfare funding under the rubric of “biodefense” received a major shot in the arm. By a vote of 99-0, the Senate passed the BioShield Act of 2004, which, on top of $22 billion for civilian biowarfare-related “defense work” funded between 2001 and 2005, allocates $5.6 billion through 2014 “to purchase and stockpile vaccines and drugs to fight anthrax, smallpox, and other potential agents of bioterror.” Critics claim that BioShield is a form of covert offensive biowarfare planning. Such research could come at a high price—beyond the billions Congress readily rubber-stamped. “The bioterror programs are far more likely to generate new risks to public health, rather than to provide additional protections,” MIT microbiologist Jonathan King says. Programs such as BioShield are “also generating a network of small and large companies planning to profit.” Hillel W. Cohen, associate professor of epidemiology and population health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, offers a similar assessment. “Before 2001, some of us in public health described bioterrorism as an exaggerated threat,” Cohen says. “No one had ever died from bioterrorism, and we warned that the proliferation of laboratories studying anthrax and other biological weapons agents was a terrible mistake, diverting money from real health needs and dangerously multiplying the number of people with access. After the 2001 anthrax letters, our warnings were buried in an avalanche of fear-mongering.” Today, Cohen says, “billions are being spent to support many more such labs.” Sen. Chuck Grassley is calling for a Congressional investigation, but.......................................... we may never know the identity of the anthrax killer. ...........................................................................Was it the uninvestigated Ft. Detrick letter-writer with compelling foreknowledge? The dead scientist the FBI initially asked to investigate the attacks then later turned against? .............Or some other individual or group, with access to high-grade strains, ...... (((Or.......who apparently were willing to ...(omg, can you believe it)....take the risk of being locked up on a Burglary charge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...Always worked before.. (B.G. here.. sorry, jumped into the article and added that which you see within these parantheses here) Oh well, back to the article)))... ....who stood to benefit from a bioterror scare? We know who didn’t put anthrax in the mail: Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. Beyond that, all we know is that the FBI’s conduct—whether by bureaucratic bungling or some kind of cover-up—makes it unlikely this case will ever be definitively closed. THE END ok..this is me now...You see. In .........MY AMERICA ....MY AMERICA....(ahhh..Patriotism, the last refuge, don't you know)...well, in My America, we had families. We loved someone. We had those who loved us, for real. We worried about every danger to those we loved. We took into our Calculus any possiblity of danger to them. That's what normal people do, you know. Again, this was and ACTIVE event. Not a passive event. Kind of like everybody collecting cans and scrap metal to benefit the war effort in WW2. It engaged the public and galvinized the war effort. Oh, not the Anthrax Attacks, silly! The cans and stuff, if you know what I mean. Incredible psychological power those Active events, don't you know. No? Well, look into it a little, won't take much time. You have a good day now. Always remember that an idle mind is the Devil's workshop, not to mention sometimes it's also stealing from the Public Treasury. I kinda lost count on the paranthesis, sorry. Alright boys, back to work now.

In the United States on September 11, even though we endured the attacks and even though we all found that our cell phones weren't working, and we all had to somehow, in the chaotic first few hours after the planes hit, get through the traffic jams and pick up our kids who were dismissed early from school, assemble our families, all without cell phones. Even at that, the level of Fear wasn't that high. Anger was high. Grief was never higher, but not fear. The Anthrax attacks however, made us all potential victims, this was not some far away singular event in New York City that we watched on TV. Every home that had a mailbox was now a target. The junk mail in my mailbox could have just brushed against one of those poisoned letters or it could have been run through a machine that was contaminated and processed thousands of letters contaminating them all. A lot of scenarios came to mind an in discussions people had at work or with friends. It was after the attacks that "Homeland Security" really took off. Make an escape plan in case of emergency, colored graphs telling you how much danger we were in every day, etc, etc. There was a run on antibiotics used for Anthrax poisoning (the rich got theirs first, of course). The Anthrax attacks made us realize how truly vulnerable our systems were to attack. The postal system, transportation system, our financial and political system were now in stark danger. Why, multiple, stragetically placed attacks like this could paralyze our whole country. The clean-up required was augean, incredibly expensive and took years. Released in a busy airport or transit hub, (God forbid) an oil refinery, the New York Stock exchange, it could shut down normal operations for years. I recall discussing a lot of senarios with people. The Anthrax Attacks made us feel weak, made us feel Fear. The Anthrax Attacks forced each individual American to fear, to think, to respond unlike 911. 911 was a passive event. All we did was watch it on TV. But this was an Active event. It required a response from each of us. We were all potential targets now. My wife wanted me to buy plastic sheeting for the windows, stock up on water, now that's personal, and I better respond or spend some time explaining and arguing. My family wasn't alone, the same thing went on in homes all across America. Every family discussed it, was aware of it and feared. That what makes it an active event. 911 didn't cause anywhere near the same level of fear as the Anthrax Attacks. For all it's horror, 911 was a television event. Which by the nature doesn't convey the same level of personal fear as Anthrax in the mail, in MY mail. That's not TV, that's My mailbox! 911 caused revulsion, anger, incredible sadness and a form of unity that was purer then what came after the Anthrax attacks. 911 didn't make anyone stock up on water and put plastic sheeting over their windows. The Anthrax attacks did. We didn't know who did it. Logic pointed to Al Qaeda (at the time...wink!). After that we were waiting for yet another shoe to drop. What was coming next? Fear across the U.S.was now palpable. After the Anthrax attacks, all bets were off as were the gloves. It was after the Anthrax Attacks that the American People gave their government card blanche. "Defend me and my family!" cried the American people. Do whatever you have too. Make war, torture, take away some of my unused rights for a while. We made a deal with the devil to protect us and the price was our constitutional soul. Hopefully, in time, we can heal ourselves and get our rabid dogs back on their leashes. But if we get hit again, as hard or harder, all bets are off. And as for Mr. Ivins, looks like somebody's tying up some loose ends. All cleaned up now...Back to your homes...The shows over..Nothing to see here...Move along...

Thanks John. It just gone on my must-see-when-I-can-get-it-cheap list. Sounds more FBI'ish then CIA'ish in this article. Hoover paranoia. He never left the 1930's. Hated blacks obsessivly. Probably rooted in his denial of his extreme sexual attraction to them, his damnation never enough to quench the guilt from the lust he felt for them. Or, maybe not; http://www.lethaldeath.com/Crimson/Archive...okSatByDoor.php From the title alone, I wonder if the War Party sees any parallels in this years election cycle in the U.S. They might think we got ourselves one of them scary ones, with principles, God forbid, one that looks you in the eye when he talks? This today, God, they are frightening.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSe_Fzt1LKA

Usually just a lurker here but thank God the tenor of this site is starting to improve. With the recent losses of good research community people it great to see that others are stepping up to the plate and finally willing to take on the real powers behind the assassination.

Peter, if I disagree with the Inquisition, does that make me a self-hating Catholic? If I disagree with what humans do anywhere. Disagree with the horrible, horrible things my human brothers and sisters do. Does that make me a self-hating human? Chomsky has the correct analysis of the nature of the US-Israel relationship, who is calling the shots, another self-hater too. Chomsky's a two-fer, actually. A self-hating Jew and a self-hating American. Finklestein too, poor guy. Guys like Dershowitz though will love his own as he helps whip his own flock that he helped panic off a cliff. The one who truly hates his own is the one whose responsible for their blood being spilled for no real reason or for an unworthy temporal purpose, i.e. personal gain, power, territory, cash baby.

Well, I apperciate that, Sid. America is a country with a lot of voices. You can find innumberable newspapers directed toward a specific ethnic or political audience. These types of news entities usually take a more biased attitude about the interest of their readers-and sometimes cater to the lowest common denomenator of their respective communities. But I do wonder how you came across that goofball rag that you referenced. Although it could have come out of the Mockingbird publishing house. You make it sound like Sullivan's article reflects a Jewish position.. Jewish opinion in the United States is diverse. Sullivan's not Jewish. He's some kind of kooked out Christo-Zionist. Yes, he does appeal to some of the "less progressive" elements of the Jewish community but certainly not all Jews feel this way. The Ahmadinejad visa issue he talks about certainly seems to have merit and sound reasoning behind it. I don't think it shows a hatred of Germany to bring up that arguement. As for Wolfowitz, certainly the man is Jewish but he is an American. I would have to give him the benefit of a doubt. Wolfowitz's personal life, about which I know too much of, seems to be an all-American one in the best of our traditional sense. It certainly reflects an openess of heart. I'm sure there are some lively political discussions around that dinner table. Overall, I'd have to assume he had America's best interest at heart. Germany went after him on the World Bank issue because of his girlfriend but let's face it. The guy is really lucky to have a girlfriend. Many times, for a laugh, I've said to the laziest person in a work situation: Hey, one thing you better not do....Quit your job. With the implication being, you're such a bum, you'll never get another job that let's your be such a bum. In a good-naturely way, of course. Never fails to get a laugh. Usually even the victim of the joke chuckles knowingly. If I worked with a guy like Wolfowitz, I'd probably tell him that and recomend he never leave his girlfriend,for the same reason----and get a big laugh every time. He's that kind of guy. At any rate, in his spech at West Point 3 months before 911, I was just trying to see if anyone else could detect , say, a note of...hmmm...overall dishonesty? Some people just can't be cool, they never were. They missed that sweet part of life. What it comes down to for me from that speech is his manner. His social awkwardness just wreaks of deceit. He's someone who, when he tries to lay something on thick, it just doesn't work. The type of fellow that, while speaking, can never seem to strike that right balance of too little too much . It's just something obvious, a personality quirk. The poor guys just not a people person. Or maybe it's that he's the kind of guy that deception just oozes out of, even when he is being totally honest. But then the thought struck me, why didn't I see this until recently and only then on the internet? Why wasn't this story played up more? He predicted the the immeditate future with a sickening accuaracy and he comfirmed that the U.S. government had the Japanese intercepts that never made it down to field commanders. At a speech at West Point? This was now an official U.S. government position.. I wasn't aware that any sitting U.S. official comfirmed this, on the record. Anyway, so what happens? Does he get credit for his feat of 911 prognostication? No! Why, you may ask? The poor guy, do you think it's because of the social thing I talked about before? That the whole speech is just ....too much. That the American people would be repelled by his speech. That it would play into the hands of those of us that are of a suspicious nature. After the event happened why wasn't every newscast , every interview prefaced with his unsmiling countenance making the predictions (so many!) he made over and over? They'd have so much to work with. So many parts of the speech hit home with such nauseating clarity. Why aren't they constantly reminding Americans that it was Wolfowitz! Wolfowitz predicted this! "Read all about it"the newsboys should sing. Wolfowitz! His name should be wagging off the tongues of every American schoolkid. He knew it was going to happen! A modern day true American hero. Of the Will Rodgers, Mark Twain, Edison, Tom Swift variety of heroic Americana with a little Houdini and the Amazing Kreskin thrown in. Well, "Great liars are also great magicians", Sid. It wouldn't suprise me if someone you really admired once said that. Just want you to know, I'm smiling while I write that, Sid. I always say, "You can say anything you want to me as long as you're smiling". Watch The Amazing Wolfie at West Point here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=BE2oYXnp-bU and tell me if your internal lie detector doesn't go off...loud and clear

Ron...perhaps Wallace was more then just a bumbling hit-man. The media, history, tends to portray and characterize people based on a few events in their lives. They don't always give a clear, accurate view of the reality of the person. I hate to appear to be in his corner but perhaps Mac Wallace was more competent, in some respects, then history seems to portray. In any event, competent or no, it could be the he was THE hard man that Johnson could trust. One of the very few he could trust hard or not, this side of Hell that is. Loyalty is everything in the dirty business we call politics, just like the Mafia. The other few men in Johnson's world that he trusted, may have been trustworthy but not the kind of hard man you would need to be involved in this type of operation. Toughness and loyalty might be why he was around. Everyone makes mistakes, but a totally loyal "ok" man who occasionaly screws up, is better then an outstanding man of dubious loyalty. And let's face it, I am sure we haven't even heard of all this man's "successes". It is possible that he was acting as Johnson's "representative" or manager, of some sort. Overseeing, but not running, the most unrelible aspect of the assassination; the grunts who would actually did the dirty deed. He could have been Johnson's Security Man on the job site, looking out for his master's interest and reporting to him how the events unfolded whether they met with success, or more importantly, one who could start cleaning things up right away if they met with failure (i.e.: removal of certain if not all the actors afterwards, clean up, etc.). This way Lyndon would have some eyes and ears on the ground and if they were unsucessful, someone to clean things up and someone from whom he would get an truthful view of exactly what took place. Or it could be that "LBJ is guilty" thing, which is picking up a whole lot of steam these days, is just another, the latest, limited hangout. Get all the evidence relased, put all the information anyone might be sitting on, hoping to make a buck or whatever, into the public arena, for peer review and examination. It's going to be a long time before the truth comes out that, a truth we can all agree on. It could be that it may never come out. Our country may not survive the challanges ahead and emerge in a form that would ever allow the this truth to come out or the pertainent evidence to ever be released.

3 short months before 9/11 Paul Wolfowitz said this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=BE2oYXnp-bU Then at the moment the towers were hit as Ron Eckart's post points out, Vanity Fair quotes PW as having these thoughts dance through his head: "We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy. . . . There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind." - Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 9, 2003 This from a man who apparantly lived, breathed and predicted this event with such accuracy. Why don't they sing his praises to the high heavens for his insight? For his astonishing prediction? To use a cake anaolgy, the icing would be too thick. Already too thick. If anyone made that speech like that at West Point. Stuck their professional neck out on the line like that. they would be waiting on pins and needles waiting for ...something to happen...As he tells it to Vanity Fair, it never crossed his mind at the time. Oh, a plane hit the WTC. No thoughts. It was almost like the man never even considered that WTC would be attacked again. Who would have thought! The man at West Point would have thought every car backfire was an attack. And yet, what a difference a couple months and a good trip to the woodshed make. I do suspect he was dressed down for the West Point speech.

John, what they got him on may seem petty but the only way they could get Al Capone was on income tax fraud. Ok, well, it's a small start, I know...babysteps. But think what the world is losing!! A man with foresight such as demonstrated in this link. Sorry, hope you don't mind, John, but I am going to hammer him on this every chance I get.. http://youtube.com/watch?v=BE2oYXnp-bU

It seems the first paragraph of my reply didn't make it to my post for whatever reason. probably a poor cut and paste job by me, nothng new there. You'll have to jump around a little but this was it: John, if you mean that assassinations rarely go according to plan because a third of the folks onboard survived, then I agree with you. As I said, if there were no survivors, I would be more inclined to suspect that something was amiss. But again I think that a crash in which 18 survived leaves too much to chance to have been deliberate. And there is nothing more certain then a bullet in the brain, as everyone in this forum knows. Muggings, robberies, auto accidents, etc., etc. happen every day. There were plenty of opportunities with Dorothy traveling around. D.C. and Chicago. These cities are not known for their low crime rate.

Now as for the children blaming Howard, I think that the blame and guilt is rarely logical when familys are involved. To the children, no matter how the you look at it, their idiot Father put their Mom in this danger. He got her into this, only him. If she were in an accident on the way to the airport, whatever, it would be that selfish jerks fault to them. What a user. Even used his own son to dispose of the evidence from the burglary. Scumbag. The kid could have been charged with who knows how many criminal counts just for that. Did he care? He needed help and used whatever was available at the time, even his own son for God’s sake. User. What a lowlife. It doesn’t surprise me how much things fell apart for them after she died. The poor boys took the brunt of his lack of their father’s manhood. I think boys always suffer the most from fathers’ weaknesses. Oh yeah, sure, he was tough guy, a real man...but not tough enough and not enough of a man to live his life for his family. It was always and only, all about Howard. The Hunts lived large, kids in private schools, nice house, nice neighborhood, etc. Dorothy was a mom before anything else and she knew how much was riding on this latest venture that “Goofball” had gotten them into. She also knew full well the kind of people they were dealing with. Animals. But I don't think that figured into her thinking. I know, that if I was taking that flight, the debt I was in, the risk to the family, the legal bills, fines, etc that they were going to have to come up with, that they may lose there house, kids would have to leave there nice schools. That was what was important to her. Her family. She was, I’m sure, a damn fine woman. Just made bad choices about men, nothing new there either, not the only smart beautiful woman to make a bad pick. Ultimately they were looking at about $800,000.00 in legal bills but she didn’t know that then or she would have got a million dollars in flight insurance. The family was what was important to her. Think about it from a good Mom’s perspective, because that is what Dorothy Hunt was before anything else. If there ever there was a time to but flight insurance, it would be then. My concern as a parent wouldn't be Nixon, the CIA, and my impending doom. It would be for my family, keeping the kids in school, keeping their lives unchanged. They lived large but could have saved money. They could have sent the kids to public school, but they didn't, she didn't. I'll bet if it were up to Howard they would have. Then was these wads of cash they were dealing with. May not sound like a lot today but back then...a lot of cash. Unchecked, untaxed, unaccountable. Dorothy probably didn’t enjoy this task that Goofball was having her do. The need to do it right was such that how else could the get the money there? Western Union? One of knucklehead Howards "relible" friends? He didn’t have any. More scumbags like him. Any honest way to get the money there would have left a paper trail, straight to the taxman. Trusting one of Howies "buddies" left open the possibility that the money could have been absconded with leaving them with no recourse. Hey, D.C. police, the idiot my husband sent “x” grand of hush money to Chicago with his scumbag friend and he stole the money! Can you go arrest him and give us the money back? Oh, and by the way, don't mention this to the press or God forbid, the IRS. Whatever the deal was that they had going, poor Dorothy wasn't going to let that money out of her sight. It may have been an afterthought to Howard, buying insurance; I suspect Howard wouldn't have thought of it at all. His brain would have said, "Hey, if I die, who cares what happens then...I'm dead!” He sounds like a totally self absorbed, selfish kind of character like so many in this world and so many of these guys become fathers and husbands. Go figure. Maybe I have too much regard for the gentler sex, but from the sounds of this family, Dorothy was the one with her head screwed on right. I think if this happened to my Mom when I was a child, and my Mom was the only one who ever really gave a crap about my family, I would blame my idiot Dad too. I wouldn’t care if it made sense or not. Mom wouldn't have been on the plane at all if it wasn't for Goofball. So, from the children’s perspective, it would always be his fault, no matter what actually happened. Accident or not. Mom should have been home taking care of the family like she would want to be. And as for her going first class, Dorothy was flying all over the country on this fool missions that Howard had gotten into. She was apparently negotiating and coordinating the payments to the principals. I would imagine she spent a lot of time on it. She certainly deserved a fee for it, cut out of everyone’s share. In that case traveling first class on their nickel seems to me not too surprising. From my readings into this, Slotnick and to Oglesby both seemed to have massaged the facts somewhat, and I didn’t dig too deep to notice that. Nixon and Ruckelshaus seemed very concerned with covering their own ugly arses, no big surprise there either. I think if you want to find integrity in this story some places to look are the members of the NSTB board investigating the accident and A.J. Weberman who after an obviously deep perusal (no doubt another “all nighter”) of the NTSB board transcripts could only find few one oddities, Aluminum Oxide on some of the instrument connections, some misettings on the altimeter. Something that should be looked into more by a competent person. It seemed that one of the Bord members wanted the alumnium oxide mentioned into the record and another member could have been tryig to cut him off. What this mens is unknown to me. Another place to look for integrity, I think, is the Dade County Coroner Office. Horrible for me to even speculate about this..There’s the off chance one of his kids might read this. I just want them to know if they do that it's definitely not my intention to cause them any more pain. In fact, I hope they would see me as sticking up for them and especially for their Mom, who was like a million other Mothers, the real saint of that family. NTSB_Report.doc