Bruce E. Ivins, a bioweapons researcher at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease, died Tuesday, July 29 2008, reportedly by suicidal drug overdose just as the Department of Justice was about to charge him with the 2001 anthrax attacks. The FBI had spent nearly seven years trying to railroad Steven Hatfill for the deeds, but failed miserably, and the Department of Justice recently settled a legal action with Hatfill by compensating him with over $5,000,000 so that it could turn its attention to easier prey. Ivins' attorney, Paul F. Kemp, who has represented him for over a year, has declared Ivins innocent, regrets that he cannot clear his name in court, even while Ivins' social worker therapist obtained a court restraining order against him stating that his treating psychiatrist Dr. David Irwin, "called him homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions." These politically convenient diagnoses had not prevented the 62-year-old Ivins from enjoying a distinguished 33 year career with the Department of the Army.
I see little or no evidence implicating Ivins in the anthrax terrorism; if he has a link at all it will be minor and ancillary. Most likely, he has been chosen as the most vulnerable individual to serve as a patsy, unlike the formidable Steven Hatfill who has defended himself so very well. We should not forget the modus operandi of the FBI on political cases, say Brandon Mayfield and the Madrid train bombings. These are typically all-out frame-ups. Mayfield was an American attorney who had converted to Islam, married a Muslim woman, and provided legal help to Muslims who were being persecuted under the PATRIOT act. The FBI named Mayfield as the man whose thumb print matched the print on an unexploded detonator cap found near the train station bomb site with "100% certainty" even though the Spanish police had already told the FBI that it was not a match and that they had the actual person in custody to which the thumb print is a match. During a July 16, 2008 Q&A at the downtown Los Angeles Library with Mayfield's attorney, Steven T. Wax, I laid out the case for a deliberate and cynical FBI frame-up of Mayfield. Wax would not go so far in public, but he discreetly said that after the Spanish police announced their finding publicly, the FBI sent their agents to meet with them and then announced to the press, "The Spanish police agree with us." Wax said that he had spoken personally with the head of the Spanish police who was present at that meeting, and who advised Wax that the FBI had simply lied. I suggest that we not be deceived by the most recent presentation of "evidence" of Ivins' guilt.
What strikes me most is that this (probably genuine) suicide is designed to put a lid upon the conspiratorial facts. The August 1, 2008 Wall Street Journal reported and opined:
The Justice Department hasn't yet decided whether to close the investigation, officials said, meaning it's still not certain whether Dr. Ivins acted alone or had help. One official close to the case said that decision was expected within days. If the case is closed soon, one official said, that will indicate that Dr. Ivins was the lone suspect.
I assure you that the Journal is the ghost of our fascist future talking, with Dr. Ivins playing the role of lone nut so certified by both his social worker therapist and his psychiatrist. But the facts say otherwise.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com has been conscientiously tracking the anthrax terrorism for years. In his most recent essay of August 1, 2008, Greenwald details how immediately after the anthrax attacks four "well-placed sources" independently reported to ABC that preliminary lab results definitively linked the anthrax to Iraq by tell-tale traces of the compound bentonite. ABC's Brian Ross broadcast this news loudly and long, and thereby vastly influenced public opinion linking Saddam to 9/11, but there is not and never was an iota of truth to these reports: bentonite was never detected by those tests. ABC kept the secret of this false leak until 2007; ABC knows its "well-placed sources" and refuses to tell Greenwald, who opines:
Greenwald hasn't yet understood that the media is under the general operational control of the intelligence agencies and under their full control when covert operations are involved -- that's when the actual agents with reporter's pads get the key assignments from management who is amongst, or serves the interest of, the plotters. And Greenwald may be missing an essential point, or not making his point so persuasively as he might. Whoever leaked the false news was not corrected publicly by the Fort Detrick lab that knew that there was no bentonite to implicate Saddam Hussein and Iraq because the Cheney/Bush administration was implementing their plans to attack Iraq that long antedated 911 by means of the anthrax theater to link him to terrorism on U.S. soil, which pre-existing plans are documented by Richard Clark, Paul O'Neill and Bob Woodward (see http://tinyurl.com/6fwhkw). This means that the top laboratory personnel were complicit or they were ordered or intimidated to shut up and they have stayed quiet for a very long while. Our government is organized so that such dissent based on the facts cannot occur. Indeed, it would be impossible for our four so-called independent news sources to lie to ABC without full confidence that ABC would not check their story with someone who knew the truth, that no-one who knew the true Ft. Detrick laboratory results would speak out, and that no competing “news” agency would ever investigate or challenge their claims. The deed itself is evidence of full and long-standing complicity and cooperation between the intelligence community and the overall media for the purpose of misleading the public.
...if they were really "well-placed," one would presume that meant they had some connection to the laboratory where the tests were conducted -- Ft. Detrick. That means that the same [Ft. Detrick] Government lab where the anthrax attacks themselves came from was the same place where the false reports originated that blamed those attacks on Iraq.
It's extremely possible -- one could say highly likely -- that the same people responsible for perpetrating the attacks were the ones who fed the false reports to the public, through ABC News, that Saddam was behind them. What we know for certain -- as a result of the letters accompanying the anthrax -- is that whoever perpetrated the attacks wanted the public to believe they were sent by foreign Muslims. Feeding claims to ABC News designed to link Saddam to those attacks would, for obvious reasons, promote the goal of the anthrax attacker(s). ...
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.
They're not protecting "sources." The people who fed them the bentonite story aren't "sources." They're fabricators and liars who purposely used ABC News to disseminate to the American public an extremely consequential and damaging falsehood. But by protecting the wrongdoers, ABC News has made itself complicit in this fraud perpetrated on the public, rather than a news organization uncovering such frauds. http://tinyurl.com/5mkgut
Greenwald notes that Richard Cohen of the Washington Post admits being advised by a high-ranking government official to start taking Cipro before the anthrax attacks -- but he apparently does not know that Cheney & friends began their Cipro on 9/11, several weeks prior to the outbreak -- and cannot understand the media resistance encountered, i.e., complicity at the highest levels, so takes the irrelevant moral high road by flogging complicity that he mistakes for dereliction or cowardice (some of which are present as the plot later reveals itself to those who either play along or pay the piper).
Michael C. Ruppert did a fine job in Crossing the Rubicon, Chapter 16, "Silencing Congress," detailing how Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pat Leahy, had their oral and written objections to the PATRIOT ACT -- Ashcroft had not even deigned a response to Leahy's letters -- were brought to an abrupt end by their receipt of anthrax letters that months later were quietly identified in the media as having originated "in CIA-run covert research programs." (pp. 269-271)
An especially clear integration of evidence for the anthrax being a state-sponsored false-flag operation occurs in an October 10, 2004 analysis by a blogger with the nom de plume of "Allie," who notes that targeting the necessary political enemies Daschle and Leahy provided the opportunity to take vengeance on several personal Bush enemies as well: the two newspaper editors responsible for exposing the drunken sluttish madcap behavior of the Bush twins, and NBC's Tom Brokaw for having Bill Clinton as a guest over White House objections September 18, 2001, the letter to Brokaw being mailed that very day that the White House's last-minute protests failed. http://tinyurl.com/2rjfmr As Allie summarizes, putting too much emphasis on Bush the individual:
The anthrax attacks were concurrent with the debate of Bush's Patriot Act by Congress and the media.
· The Senators who received anthrax letters were trying to amend the Patriot Act to protect civil liberties and the innocent.
· Two Senate democratic leaders received anthrax letters mailed the same day that Senator Feingold blocked an attempt to rush the bill through without discussion or amendments.
· Senator Leahy received an anthrax threat after he expressed reservations about the Bill. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he managed the debate on the Bill.