Yeah, What ABOUT that Anthrax Terrorist?
Call me crazy. But after viewing this very creepy exchange between Patrick Leahy and Michael Mukasey regarding the anthrax killer, I got the feeling that both of them know exactly who sent those anthrax-laden letters almost seven years ago.
Leahy uses the recent settlement between Hatfill and DOJ to raise the issue. As he raises it, he notes that he is privy to classified information about the anthrax killer, and because of that he has refrained from even discussing the case.
Leahy: I almost hate to get into the case of Steven Hatfill. I’ve refrained from discussing this, I’ve refused to discuss it with the press. I’ve told them some aspects of it I was aware of were classified so of course I could not discuss it but also, considering the fact that my life was threatened by an anthrax letter, two people died who touched a letter addressed to me I was supposed to open, I’m somewhat concerned.
What happened?
Mukasey: That case …
Then Leahy makes s curious statement: we’re paying Hatfill, which means that the guy who committed the crime is going free.
Leahy: We’re paying Hatfill millions of dollars, the indication being the guy who committed the crime went free.
I’ll let you sort through the logic of that sentence. But know that Mukasey doesn’t like it–not at all.
Mukasey: Well, um, I don’t understand, quote, the guy who committed the crime, unquote, to have gone free. What I do understand is…
Leahy: Nobody’s been convicted.
Mukasey: Not yet.
Leahy: And five people are dead.
Mukasey: Yes, um…
Leahy: And hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent.
Eventually, it seems that Muaksey concedes that he, too, has very specific knowledge about the case.
Mukasey: That case is under active investigation and I need to be very careful about what I say.
Which Leahy seems to confirm. After all, if they didn’t have very specific things to say to each other about the pursuit of the anthrax terrorist, then what good would a "private talk" about this be?
Leahy: We won’t go any further. As I say, I feel somewhat reluctant because I was one of the targets. But I gotta say, what families of the people who died went through, what families of the people who were crippled went through, even what my family went through. A lot of people are concerned and I won’t say more because we are in open session but I think you and I probably should have a private talk about this sometime.
Mukasey: That’s fine.
Leahy ends with a comment that may well be directed at Mukasey’s unwillingness to prosecute Bush officials for torture, or may well be directed toward fraudsters who tamper with elections, or may well be directed at the contractors who are seemingly immune from prosecution in Iraq, or may well be directed at Turdblossom’s involvement in the persecution of Don Siegelman.
Leahy: You’re the one person, the one person, who has the final say the laws are going to apply to everybody in this nation.
But I can’t help but wonder whether Leahy suspects the government doesn’t think the laws against terrorism ought to apply to "guy who committed" the anthrax attacks.
Wow! Just wow! It’s really hard not to feel panicky while watching this land of laws become a crime family. Maybe the truth is that we always were a country of hypocrisy with a grand constitution that was only followed with discipline when we were able to regulate emotion.
But somehow all this feels different to me. Scary different.
That was a really funny sentence, wasn’t it? I wasn’t sure at the time that I had heard it properly. I was looking at Leahy and wondering whether he would actually dare or even want to be a whistle-blower. He has internalized so much fealty to the rule of law and the structures of government as it is supposed to work that I would think he’d find his own blurt maybe half a step too far. Not that I was sorry he did it, but these days, that counts as audacity, yes?
So is Leahy implying that someone in the Bush Admin sent those letters? And if Mukasey is being such an ass, maybe someone should have a little talk with Chuck Schumer. Wasn’t Chuck the one that said Mukasey would behave and not become an obedient Bushie?
No, I think Leahy is saying that DOJ knows who sent those letters, but for some reason, it would inconvenience the Bush Administration to press charges.
Inconvenience them? Or is this someone they have used for other nasty bits of work and they are afraid he/she would testify? Like the telecom companies with FISA? Make sure information never comes out?
The anthrax terrorist really played right into BUshCo’s interests in fear-mongering. If this were a right wing nut, I can see why BushCo wouldn’t want him prosecuted–because it would deflate all their fear-mongering and make it crystal clear that terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, including the white christian variety.
Ah..well, all I know is that my eldest daughter was working for Ted Kennedy(whose office was right down the hall from Leahy’s at that time)as an intern – and opening the mail was part of her job – and she was taken out and tested twice that I recall. Extremely unpleasant. We won’t ge into what happened to her on 9/11 – to say I was having a nervous breakdown because I could not reach her by cell phone is putting it mildly.
…and to drational @9.
Whoever pulled off the anthrax op has bushco by the nuts, if in fact the perp wasn’t bushco itself. (Access to Fort Dietrick labs puts perp at a “high” level.) This would lend credence to a premise which has been bandied about here and elsewhere, that there are several conflicting power centers (mobs) struggling between themselves for control of the govt.
So now back to the exchange between Leahy and Mukasey, where we see bits of this conflict leaking out in a public setting. It is quite apparent to me, as I mentioned in another comment, that there are some serious exchanges of threats going on behind the firewalls here. Personal threats, blackmail, etc. to keep information bottled up. We are seeing the very topmost dogs of govt openly violating their oath, even presumably their personal ethics, in order to avoid being the detonator.
It follows that there are forces at work here more powerful than govt institutions and the individuals in charge of them.
The other “by the nuts facet” is that the spores were touted as “weaponized” in a manner “known to be similar” to spores produced in Iraq. The Neocons used this unsubstantiated bullshit to help sell the Iraq war.
So they slow walk the investigation…..
Time to read original reporting on the anthrax scare.
The new person (or group) of interest was likely named in early reporting. Just gotta figure out who might be embarrassing to the admin.
Given the targets were liberals and media, makes sense the “terrorist” is a home grown rightwinger who possibly has some connection to the GOP.
I’m not entirely convinced it’s a “new” person.
How would they know it would be inconvenient if they don’t know who did it?
Sorry – I misread your original statement. You’re saying Leahy thinks DOJ knows who did it?
Do you think that Hatfill’s lawyers know that they know, hence the huge settlement?
Mukasey had a boatload of ‘ums yesterday.
According to NPR, this will be the last time Mukasey has to testify
before the Oversight Committee…. unless he doesn’t turn over the Cheney
papers…
Is Rove’s high wire seat vacant?
I know this was a hearing, but the sentence implies that the referenced “guy” is Hatfill, which I assume is incorrect. I assume that he meant something like, “whoever did commit the crime remains free”.
This administration’s — and now, presumably, the Democrats’ future one — has abused the Constitution on the premise that it was necessary to keep us safe. It would be an astounding abuse of discretion for that government to have hard evidence to charge the person or group who terrorized America for months, murdered several of our neighbors, delayed our mail and access to government officials and public places, and cost at least several hundred million in direct and indirect costs. (All borrowed money.)
Possible rationales? The “evidence” was illegally obtained or obtained via legal methods that can’t be revealed without revealing the Bush administration’s infamous “sources and methods”. Which suggests that revealing even evidence once or twice removed, but based on the original, would reveal an origin that is worth protecting (in Bush and Cheney’s sound judgment of such things). Worth hiding and not punishing a heinous crime.
Or, the individual or group is so privileged, for hidden reasons, it can’t be touched. What person, corporation or government would be on this administration’s protected list and why?
I would call this episode another of the administration’s crimes of omission. But based on the FISA debacle, the Democrats are more willing to aid, abet and hide them than the GOP.
Bringing it up in this hearing does raise that question , if, Leheay was stating that he knew that the information came from illegal wiretaps and that the DOJ had ignored it so as not to bring to light TSP and all the othe atrocities of this ADMIN. Am I getting that right?
As far as I can see it is just one more crime committed by this administration that is not going to be prosecuted for whatever reason.
Here’s what I suspect Leahy is pointing to–the reasons he might think DOJ would be reluctant to pursue charges should be obvious:
In other words, the US has “tested” biowarfare on Americans in the past.
But in this case you would have the government testing biowarfare on members of Congress. Why would Leahy not blow a gasket and go public with something like that if he had a suspicion or the evidence?
Then again, maybe that explains the behavior of some Democrats when it comes to some of these votes. Maybe they’re just scared shitless. If that’s the case, why stay in Congress at all?
Jeez, now I’m scared shitless.
Bob Graham didn’t. And he was ranking member of Senate Intelligence when this happened. I’ve always wondered about his move from Presidential candidate to Senate retirement over such a short timeframe.
Interesting point. His move was somewhat unusual.
Where are Scully and Mulder and the Lone Gunmen when you need them?
Where are the whistleblowers? Failing that, why hasn’t this government, so fond of extraordinary rendition and torture when it comes to those it mistakes for terrorists, used them on the real thing? Professional courtesy?
Earl, Mulder and Scully are out there and coming to a movie screen close to you any day now!
Sorry I didn’t respond earlier. I had a little black oil in my eye.
My eyebrows went up when I read the word “classified”. Not “confidential”, which is how you would describe any information that came to light as part of an investigation, but “classified”. Which makes me think that our germ warfare program is a wee bit more aggressive than we’re letting on.
sorry EW I was typing while when you answered.
“enemies foreign and domestic” … Would a “foreign enemy” choose to attack the Legislative Branch in preference to the Executive Branch? (I don’t recall there being anthrax-laden letters sent to the Executive Branch; were there?) It seems unlikely; not the prime target one would expect a foreign terrorist to choose. Like choosing some Liberal MP in the UK over the PM. Where’s the PR payoff?
What kind of “domestic enemy” would choose to attack the Legislative Branch in preference to the Executive Branch? Specifically, what “domestic enemy” would choose to attack the left side of the aisle rather than the right?
On the list of possible answers are some that I don’t even feel comfortable writing in a blog comment!
Don’t forget the attacks on news organizations. Well, the National Enquirer isn’t quite so reputable, but still, what foreign terrorist would target them, or the NY Post? NYT or WashPo, sure, but the Post???
In fact, the attack on the NY Post says that the attacker was a NY/NJ/CN resident or ex-resident, ’cause who the hell else is either aware or gives a damn about them?
That would be like al-Qaida saying “now let us attack the L.A. Weekly! That will show the infidels!” Mmmm…sure.
The reason they targeted NYC media is that they wanted to intimidate and disrupt the New York local media while there were still embarrassing stories coming out of the World Trade Center site. This whole operation was clearly designed to silence the media and leading Democrats. The question is why.
If someone died, I don’t see how the statute of limitations passed.
From a quickie google, this MJ article indicates maybe there are some active suspects:
http://www.motherjones.com/moj…..thrax.html
but I seem to recall reading an article that came out when the settlement was announced where some FBI-types were indicating that the trail had been allowed to grow too cold, etc. and that no one would ever be arrested.
If the anthrax murders really did stem from “a secret project to examine the practicability of sending real anthrax through the mail” I can’t understand why Leahy’s office would have been a recipient of the mail rather than a CIA or other intel recip site. Maybe someone cooked up the secret project on mailing as a cover for a different kind of secret project, layer the cover.
I have to say that one take on the exchange would be that Leahy was told more things about Hatfill than have been made public and he’s wanting to know if he got schnookered. I have a hard time believing that he was told a lot about a different guy and just sat back for so long while they focused solely on Hatfill.
As for Mukasey – he doesn’t care about the dead. He’s let himself get so wrapped up in being Bush’s boy, and in the self-importance of his office and all the “threats” and horrors on the line every day, that he doesn’t really see the victims of crimes as victims of crimes anymore. They are just datapoints to be filtered through the lens of his Bushcolored glasses and adjusted like chess pieces to protect the king. What is best for Bush has pretty much replaced anything and everything that might have amounted to decency or intellect or principles in the man. What a sad thing to have become what Mukasey has chosen to become. All of it, his choice.
O/T: Re Rove and the HJC: I didn’t think to tune in on time, but the committee has a statement from Linda Sanchez here, (pdf), which I’ve only just started to read.
One very odd thing: Fielding did not write directly to the subcommittee yesterday to say that Rove is immune from compelled testimony before Congress. He wrote to Luskin, and Luskin has forwarded that letter to HJC. Is that done? Seems pretty insulting to me.
23 I would think that the party asserting privilege needs to be the one to assert it to the tribunal, so the letter to Luskin route sounds pretty circuitous – an attempt to delegate to the responder the holder’s privilege? Was HJC at least cc’d on that letter?
SusanG has a post up at kos
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…../45/549153
that shows how thoroughly Mukasey has morphed into Bush.
From what I can see of the docs from HJC’s site, no.
If Rove had at least been planning to turn up, then I could see that route. Several people did that last year — Sara Taylor and Monica, eg — “I have a letter …” And I’m not sure whether Fielding had CC’d the committees separately in those cases. But they showed up.
Well. EW will explain it all to us.
The crucial morphing had already happened before he was confirmed as Attorney General. Bernie Sanders spotted it:
I meant 22/skadl – not 23. sorry, old eyes.
The other thing to keep in mind is that it wasn’t just legislators who were targeted. The press also was targeted.
Who stood most in the way of Bushco? Democratic legislators and the press. The only other targets they missed were the courts. Does anyone remember any judges being targeted? For me, that would cement a Bushco player or sympathizer as the culprit.
“Haven’t been hit since 9/11! Haven’t been hit since 9/11!”
Yeah, and those five people didn’t die, either…
heavy stuff.. sooner or later someone is going to break the silence, whether it’s classified or not… someone is eventually going to come forward who has some balls, and sees where all this silence is leading…
And no congressperson in all of this time thought it might be a good idea to write a bill outlawing this? Bushco must have gotten their jollies running around screaming WMD, WMD, War, War!
I am going out on a limb and gonna say they have evidence cheney is involeved, cheney or rove
I can’t imagine anyone else having to be spoken about in secure setting
don’t forget it was cheney that told leahy to go f**** himself
don’t forget, cheney is a sociopath
and oh, rove refused to appear and he DID site executive priviledge
he is CHALLENGING an arrest and from what i found out yesterday, pelosi asked conyers to NOT site rove for contempt
man, they better arrest this maggot
Is there any possibility that the only reason the dems don’t stand up is that they fear that as soon as they do…the bushco folks or some faction of them will actually cause or allow another terrorist attack that will then cause the dems to be in the “liberal” position of being “soft on terrorism”?? Being “soft on terrorism” doesn’t have much bite unless the dems believe that the republicans can and will engineer a terrorist attack in order to win the election. Now, whether or not this fear is valid could be another arguement…but is it possible that enough dems believe that bushco or some faction would go to this length…if the dems impeached or took any strong action to reel these terror mongers in.
In this sense it is very much like the control that a batterer has on a family. It could mean that the dems really buy the idea that bushco is an even bigger threat to the people of this country than we might realize and that they will go to any length to stay in “power”. So…could it be that some dems “perceive” that the bush administration has the will and the means to engineer or allow a terrorist attack?
Those Saudi intelligence channels work both ways.
(Also GulfCoastPirate @ 28)
This has been my working assumption almost since it happened. But the approach is still indefensible, given what is being destroyed by all the fear. There has to have been another strategy besides silent capitulation; as I say from time to time, if you’ve got a big problem, speak up somehow.
Here’s one of the images of that day, from Washington, that most struck me when I saw it, though there’s not a bit of physical devastation in it. It must be the composition.
Maybe I’m missing something but what about that picture strikes you as odd?
Our goveernment in a disorganized retreat under a thrreat that might be right overhead, in short.
That is an amazing exchange between Leahy and Mukasey. Wow.
I’m not sure Leahy is saying the DoJ knows who did, only that they _know_ Hatfill is innocent. Which is interesting in itself and raises interesting questions.
…terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, including the white christian variety…
Or, perhaps, they come in the form of non-US agents or contractors. I don’t see any reason to assume, even if the Anthrax came from a specific US lab, that the perps were US citizens or wingers or whatever.
This business at USAMRIID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaad_Assaad is interesting but I’m not sure it points to either Israel or wingers as has been suggested. There’s no evidence that Zack is an Israeli and the racist stuff seems to have been a cover for a love triangle. However, it does indicate that there were serious security issues at USAMRIID and the timing of the whole mess is pretty suspicious.
If the administration is trying to cover something up, I’d guess that they are trying to cover up a whole program or an US plus another country program or a US plus contractors program and not just one individual. I think they could handle one perp without spilling embarrassing beans.
I’m sure she’s been deluged by NSLs and just can’t talk about it but it might be worth trying to interview Barbara Hatch Rosenberg again. As far as I can tell, she hasn’t weighed in the Hatfill settlement.
Regarding Zack being Jewish or not, I find it very strange that the proof of him being a Catholic is from an “Zanesville Ohio Times Recorder” newspaper dated July 28, 1974. You cannot locate that 34-year-old news story online! Anyone else think that smells fishy???
The people that surround Bush remind me of protective parents of mentally ill children. They’re scared. They keep hoping that the child will get better. Seems to me Bush has been protected from himself all his life. Money helped.
…don’t forget it was cheney that told leahy to go f**** himself…
Good point. Cheney’s not exactly a random kinda guy. Maybe there was more to that exchange than meets the eye.
The procedure with the Addington/Yoo panel was that the witness had to assert a specific privilege for each question they refused to answer, wasn’t it?
Nadler was very good at that. He interrupted every time to demand a specific assertion.
I am impressed by how quickly this ruling was issued. I think the committee is well prepared to push the contempt issue.
The July 9th letter is why Sánchez was prepared for this.
I am thinking that was yesterday.
Bradbury’s first letter (Attachment B, July 10, 2007) talks about Harrier Miers only, not Rove.
Bradbury’s second letter (Attachment A, August 1, 2007) talks about Rove, but with specific reference to the firing of the US Attorneys.
And Fielding’s letter to Luskin is trying to sneakily incorporate the Siegelman case into the US Attorney case and suggest that Rove doesn’t have to talk about nothing. Of course, nowhere do they say that Rove’s potential involvement in the Siegelman case relates “to his […] official duties”. That might be kinda hard for them to justify, so they’re trying to broad brush this one.
Drat. I was just going to say that.
No, the earlier correspondence was why she was prepared. At least when she made her statement this morning, she did not mention the Fielding letter.
Rep. Sánchez is not impressed with KKKarl.
Ruling of Chairwoman Linda Sánchez on Executive Privilege – Related Immunity Claims By Karl Rove
Wow, another sternly worded decision/letter.
Now what? Nuthin’ prolly.
Its more than it letter, its a ruling. Its satisfies a condition to move ahead with a finding of contempt.
which pelosi has asked conyers not to persue
I just went to the HJC site and ask the ignore Ms broomstick and do the job they were elected to do.
Perris
I really wish you would stop repeating false rumors. Unless hte people on HJC–with whom I’ve been correctly informed on the status of Contempt in the House going back a year–lied to me, than your assertion is false.
I linked to the piece yesterday, I am glad it’s been denied
sorry bout the rumor thing
I think that was refuted by Pelosi’s office?
I hope so
Yeah – but that’s what they did with Miers and Bolton. That was a very similar ruling. Mukasey refused to do anything and now it’s stuck in the courts. Unless the move on inherent contempt this will be stuck in the courts too.
This is kind of weird:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/10…..to_t.shtml
Oh good. I’d forgotten about that bit. ”Anthrax” and ”renting apartment to hijackers” in the same paragraph, and with an anthrax-caused fatality in the next. Probability of two events, A and B, occurring is prob(A) times prob(B). A = given newspaper having a photographer die of anthrax; B = same newspaper having staff member rent apartment to 9/11 hijackers. prob(AB) so low you look for an intentional link, like, ”the hijackers were in the anthrax business”. Which leads you to wonder, ”Where would hijackers get ‘weaponized Ames spores’ (or however you characterize the non-homebrew material). Oh. Iraq. Yeah, that’s it.
And then it all goes silent.
Then, you could always wonder whether a third party with access to both spores and knowledge of the hijackers’ whereabouts prior to 9/11 manufactured a connection, but found that the connection they wished to have inferred was just too incredible/implausible to sell.
Rather like having no undersea cables cut for years, then a rash of cuts, then no cuts again. Rather than repeat the implausible explanation, sometimes it’s just better to let people forget about it.
Well, there’s also this:
TAMPA, Fla. – SunCruz Casinos has turned over photographs and other documents to FBI investigators after employees said they recognized some of the men suspected in the terrorist attacks as customers.
Michael Hlavsa, chairman of the gambling cruise company, said Wednesday two or three men linked to the Sept. 11 hijackings may have been customers on a ship that sailed from Madeira Beach on Florida’s gulf coast.
9/26/01 By VICKIE CHACHERE Associated Press Writer and Florida Times-Union
Or all the genius displayed in this entertaining roundup? (Now here’s someone, a newly familiar type it turns out, who shares my evaluation of the gameplaying skills and general intellect of the people in question.)
In case you missed it, the Luskin letter from July 9th:Up Yours Congress!
Is EW going to get mad at us for derailing her Hatfill thread?
But Luskin’s letter plus attachments is/are fascinating. Fielding’s letter is so flaccid, such a bad piece of writing, and then as a bonus we get two Bradburys.
These people are gainfully employed?
I suspect EW is working on this already, the slice-n-dice machine is probably humming along.
And did you see old Freddy’s penmenship (signature)?
Do we have a hand writing specialist?
He is not normal.
You know a DOJ cover-up of a suggestion of government culpability of concealing knowledge in the anthrax murders is bit too edgy isn’t it? What’s so wrong with the distraction of dissecting the niceties of legislative procedure.
“Mukasey: Well, um, I don’t understand, quote, the guy who committed the crime, unquote, to have gone free. What I do understand is…
Leahy: Nobody’s been convicted.
Mukasey: Not yet.”
Sounds to me like the “guy” who committed the crime, is in custody, but has not been convicted yet.
So…who could be in custody…who would have targeted liberals and Dem Senators….who would do something like that so that it would “benefit” the propaganda build up for the GWOT, the Patriot Act..etc….either a person who actually “handled” the anthrax and knew how, or a person who enabled it to happen. It is possible that the originator of the actual preparation and mailing of the letters is dead, but was acting on other orders from someone…I think it was some kind of coordinated, organized crime type of hit…..now, who could be in custody that would have those types of connections….?? I know what I’m thinkin’.
At one time, besides Hatfill, suspicion also fell on Dr. Ayaad Assaad, an Egyptian scientist working at Fort Detrick.
But an atricle in Salon (January 26, 2002) called attention to the mysterious activities on one Lt. Col. Phil Zack. Obviously the case has been left hanging.
Fort Detrick’s anthrax mystery
http://dir.salon.com/story/new…..index.html
Rove is out of the country. They should arrest him when he
sets his fucking feet back in the States…
Where is he? How convenient for him.
Not sure, but one of his Republican pals on the judiciary,
said he was on a trip, planned well in advance. (kinda of an excuse for his
no show) — pure garbage from his shill…
These are the anthrax envelopes and letters:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/102301.htm
Note: A non-US person would have dated it 11-09-01 not 09-11-01. Also, interesting is the consistent writing of “1″ with the little tail at the top.
Senator Leahy has not been notorious for gaffes; he does not suffer from poor impulse control. He has thought about all aspects of the anthrax attacks and their investigation at great length, as anyone with his related experiences would. I doubt that he misspoke a word in his exchange with Mukasey.
I’m guessing that Leahy sees in executive branch conduct related to the anthrax attacks at the very least a cover-up, and that he considers the matter of the executive branch’s conduct so important that he is willing to let colleagues and the public suspect Hatfield somewhat, and suspect high-ranking members of the executive branch and those who would have received their orders strongly, of criminal conduct related to the attacks.
This is all so disturbing that Leahy may wish to explain what he said, at least a little.
The name I wrote as Hatfield should have been Hatfill.
WRT the Anthrax attacks, I would not be too quick to point fingers at “Bushco” on this. As Foster’s piece makes clear, this has been going on for years and one of the biggest tests occurred in 1997 (i.e., under Clinton). Thus, if both sides of the aisle are being quiet, it’s probably because both sides are complicit.
(Sort of like TSP, no?)
Relatedly, when I tell my students about Tuskegee, they all seem to brush it off as something that would never happen “these days.” When I mention the simulations in airports and subways, they right me off as a lefty prof.
True. Just as the technical basis for Bush’s warrantless wiretapping (but not the legal basis, or lack thereof) was put into place under Clinton.
Though by all reports, the suspected culprit is a right winger. Bush doesn’t like to call right wingers terrorists. It’d mean he’d have to start investigating half his base.
Whether or not the prime suspect is a right-winger doesn’t seem germane. Foster’s thesis is that the Anthrax mailer is trying to wake us up as to how vulnerable we are, with, at worst, the added motivation of increased funding for his or her own work. I don’t, myself, see that as partisan, just as I don’t see my lobbying for behavioral science over neuroscience as partisan.
“Right” is wrong.
“Write” is what I should have righted. tee hee
Maybe, but I find the following more plausible:
Hatfill has made it clear that if they come after him for real, he will blow the whistle on everything. Imagine how the general public would react if they knew that Tuskegee was small potatoes. Why, it might even make more people take 911 conspiracy theories more seriously. And, given that Ds have been just as complicit in domestic weapons tests as Rs, neither side wants this to come out.
My guess on what happened yesterday is this. Leahy was tired and depressed about FISA. He lost track of where he was (in a subtle way, not fugue) and started to ask Mukasey about Hatfill because it matters to him. I, personally, read the word “guy” as exactly that: he was saying “now that you’ve paid him off, you can’t ever go after him” — then he caught himself and said it needed to be private, not on C-Span.
Whoever sent those anthrax letters was trying to “kill” Dashle and Leahy. What was Daschle up to at that time????:
http://complete911timeline.org…..e__aumf__1
I’m not so sure about that. Make him sick, maybe, but not kill.
Again, think about the logic of going after legislators (instead of executives). The idea was to get funding for counter-measures. You could get the WH to scream until hoarse (which it may have already been doing), but you need to convince those with the money if you want a real project.
Making Leahy sick would probably succeed. Heck, for all we know, it did succeed and we’re funding offensive and defensive aspects right now.
It killed 2 staff members who handled the letter for him. It was designed to kill people.
I would just point out that the anthrax mailings were not “tests” or “simulations”: those were not spores of some ’stand-in’ bug — those were the real, knock-you-dead items. Not as dependable as a sniper’s bullet, perhaps — more like a shotgun — but lethal weapons, nonetheless.
Yes, the mailings were real, not tests. But they seemed to contain the clues necessary for treatment. So I don’t agree that you can infer (safely) that were intended to kill. Scare, yes. Sicken, maybe. But I don’t see the evidence that they were intended to kill. (Note: The deaths of handlers could be seen as unplanned; maybe tape isn’t sufficient sealing after all.)
One thing I’ll agree to: it was terrorism. Fear to get what you want.
More generally, I think that you’re mixing two things.
The letters, according to me, were aimed to “wake us up” as to how vulnerable we are.
The tests were seeing how well we could use these things as weapons and/or how easily they could used against us.
Separate issues except for one thing: Hatfill could expose the truth about the tests which is one reason why the gov’t might be avoiding going after him. He’s also smart and crazy enough to have docs stashed away for release “upon my disappearance or death.”
Since EW loves timelines and many have asked “the connection” of Leahy and Daschle and the anthrax letters…
I’ve enjoyed this post that was up at Democratic Underground for a while and found it compelling…it’s from 7/04…
http://www.democraticundergrou…..×1719
The thoughts are interesting…
Other points Daschle and Leahy stood on:
They both crushed the Bush/Cheney Energy Plan in May of 2001
They both opposed Bush/Cheney Missile Defense System in May of 2001
They both opposed the Judicial nominations of May 2001 and were vocal about the Unitary Executive move to limit the role the that American Bar Association had traditionally filled in the Judicial nomination process.
They both stated in May of 2001 that Bush would need to learn how to work with the Dems…
That list should just about point a line of dots towards Leahy’s context of comments…
Ooops…Guess it was the wrong list to select guys…
Interesting. At the very least, the letter mailer had to be someone paying attention to what Dashle and Leahy were all about…on some level. The targeting was not random. The person who sent the letters could be dead from handling the anthrax too.
The other interesting facts relate to your postings…The NJ address on the letters and the FL “Irish” story…
Remember a few weeks ago, the post of the series by Brit Hume from Fox IRT Israeli Spies and 9-11? (Note: Offices in NJ and South FL).
Not to mention the ties of Sun Cruz, Abramoff, an awefully large certain spying PAC and Tom DeLay…
Oops; hit ’send’ by accident. Sanders quote from TPM Muckraker.
A key impetus from the targeted anthrax mailing was isolation of opposition to the pending invasion of Iraq. The prewar hype denigrated anyone opposed to looking for what JudyJudy and others were writing would be found. I can even see a Hatfill as a fallguy, a permutation of the strategy of tossing Judy and even Scooter to the jaws of justiceMachinery, though Scooter added his own feckless attempts to outwit nascent investigations, out of his ideology and schooled loyalty. I thought the scintillation between Mukasey and Leahy was at one level two elders in politics now, observing, as if talking about government weather at the watercooler, yes, there are currents that affect lives in what officials do in government, Leahy momentarily trying to lift Mukasey out of the mire of partisanry, successfully, I thought, based on the half-life of stammer that reflection elicited from the AG. Maybe it is all more mundane, and I have no sense about the actual assertions in the Hatfill matter either way, except perhaps most recently respect for the vision which perceived flaws in the way Hatfill was treated as proffered by bmaz, viz., that Hatfill deserved a robust settlement, given the imprecisions in the case brought against him. And everyone who respected a reporter’s domain likely began to hope for some relief for Locy, pinned in the GJ evidence rules. I wonder if Daschle will have an opportunity to speak about the matter a vividly as Leahy has now that it has neared some stasis which has accommodated Hatfill more fairly as a beginning.
Somehow the Don Foster piece in Vanity Fair had passed me by until today. It put me in the ‘Hatfill did it’ camp, and I agree with JTMinIA that the most natural interpretation of Leahy’s words is that he is too.
The size of that settlement should be a tip-off that Hatfill’s holding some cards, which I’d assume to be the details of U.S. biowarfare experimentation.
I am surprised that there are only two mentions of Dr Zack here.
If anyone is seriously interested in this anthrax story, read my links and learn about the Camel Club and Dr Zack and a little old lady called Barbara Hatch Rosenberg.
Then ask yourself why the FBI Director deliberately turned this murder investigation into a media circus focussed on the wrong suspect???
The truth is out there… But can you handle the truth?
Just to add to your point. Cipro, being a high powered anti-biotic, is not recommended as a preventative therapy for possible anthrax infection. It’s usually administered after exposure. Also, symptoms of anthrax infection can take more than 60 days to appear.
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-…..x-symptoms
Symptoms of anthrax infection-
Cutaneous anthrax
Cutaneous anthrax usually occurs when spores from the bacteria enter a cut or scrape on the skin. Cutaneous anthrax infection has the following characteristics:
* Skin infection begins as a small, raised bump that might itch-similar to an insect or spider bite.
* Within 1 to 2 days, the bump develops into a fluid-filled blister about 1cm to 3cm in diameter. Within 7 to 10 days, the blister usually has a black center of dying tissue (eschar) surrounded by redness and swelling. The blister is usually painless.
* Additional blisters may develop.
Here’s a pic of Bush after the famous pretzel incident – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1758848.stm
sure seems to follow the description.
The timing really is a stretch, almost 90 days from when they starting taking the drugs, but I’d be interested in seeing pictures of Bush a week or so earlier…could there have been some cosmetic touch-up to mask this up? Was he in the general public view during early January? I never really bought the ‘chocking on the pretzel’ thing.
Now, I’m not accusing GW of being the perp; for all I know he thought the baggie contained some Columbia flake. Or, more likely, maybe he got dosed to keep him on the same page with the Master Plan. He sure didn’t look like a guy in control on 9/11 with that bizarre extended classroom photo-op, reading My Pet Goat…..a real ‘deer in the headlights’ moment for the Decider Guy.
IIRC, the reporter that died in FL. was also the guy who published those unflattering pictures of the Bush twins, falling down in the bar. Would the perps have selected him as a target to make the connection to Bush?
Thatnks for the info on Cipro, bystander, but I wouldn’t want to get to side-tracked on that issue.
That pretzel incident sure was weird, but like you say 90 days is a stretch. Here’s a photo of Bush looking fine a month earlier in December 2001. Whether on nor Cheney took Cipro, the “Camel Club” stuff is screaming for more attention.
To come up to speed quickly, read this and then this.
Let’s put two and two together here (after you’ve read the link of course).
Let’s suppose that those who allowed 9-11 to happen were pro-Zionists, and let’s further suppose that they further concocted the anthrax scare to help cover up the embarrassing details emerging in the weeks after the WTC attacks. Let’s suppose they had some connection to the “Camel Club”, who could supply them with anthrax. Wouldn’t such people have a strong motivation to “finger all Arab-Americans, and Muslims, as potential terrorists”? Wouldn’t they strongly want to promote that anti-Muslim narrative to the traumatised US national psyche?
And if so, didn’t they do a swell hum-dinger of a job?
If Bin Laden’s Al Quaeda did this, or even some other radical Islamic supporters, do you think they would have targeted Democrats or Republicans? Hmmn?
In what kind of top secret, dangerous bio-terrorism work environment do colleagues harrass their co-workers with racist missives, “including a rubber camel outfitted with a sex toy” accompanied with a lengthy poem? Isn’t that totally bizarre and completely inappropriate? Why didn’t senior staff intervene? And why were security precautions at the lab so lax?
Or were they really all that lax – could that story just be a deliberate pointer to outside operators?
It seems clear that the prime suspects in the anthrax case today must be Dr. Philip M. Zack, Dr. Marian K. Rippy, their “camel club” colleagues, and their supervisors.
But of course, the wide-spread cover-up is of far more concern than the incident itself, even though the latter killed 5 people.
The facts indicate that the FBI was ready to make an arrest long ago, but they cannot make an arrest without approval of the lawyers in The Department of Justice.
What if it’s not so much the FBI who have stuffed up this investigation (albeit certain persons may have actively conspired to do so) but the Dept. of Justice which is blocking investigation of the real culprit?
I became interested in the Anthrax case early on. By chance, I spent the summer of 2001 wading through newspaper archives, researching Middle Eastern terrorist groups’ interactions with their regional media. Sometimes, foreign newspapers would print the groups’ actual letters. Generally speaking, they write their demands and threats in a very different way than Americans would. They’re extremely long-winded, with lots of allegory and metaphor. Fancy stuff. Not the “Death to America, Death to Israel” scrawled note that was sent with some of the anthrax letters.
I concluded very quickly that the attacker was an American pretending to be a Middle Eastern terrorist (and doing a lousy job of it). I had a couple of contacts in the law enforcement community, so tried to use those to give the FBI my information, such as it was. Through those contacts, I got to see glimpses of the investigation. My impression was that the FBI failed to investigate all possibilities and once they settled on Hatfill, who I truly believe is innocent, no longer felt much need to go after anyone else. In other words, they leapt to conclusions and convinced themselves they had their man, even when the evidence said otherwise.
I’ve conducted my own amateur investigation and come up with another possibile name, btw. I don’t have any evidence against the person of course, just was able to document some really interesting behavior on that person’s part. I’m just annoyed the FBI didn’t seem to aggressively investigate other possibilities after they decided Hatfill was guilty.
One of the highlights of the Nixon Administration — where so many of our Executive Branch denizens cut their teeth in government — was the Huston Plan, which detailed a number of domestic spying operations. One of the more infamous operations, never put into play, involved the firebombing of the Brookings Institute. Administration spies were supposed to go into the building in the ensuing chaos, disguised as firemen, to rifle through the Institute’s files and install listening devices.
I sometimes think of Mr. Huston when I recall the evacuation of the Congressional office buildings, and the lengthy decontamination process that followed.
The same idea has been floating about the ether regarding the American Media building in Boca Raton, Florida. Apparently it took them 3 years to clean the building. There was also a rumor that American Media had pictures of the then underage Bush girls drinking or doing something.
It was Rudy Julie-Annie’s (relatively) recently founded cleanup firm that did the “work.”
And to the quote in EW’s #16: “The experiment was kept secret for 20 years. “
Well, this flies in the face of those conspiracy “debunkers” who cry, “nothing can be kept secret for THAT long.” Yes, it can, and, yes, they do.
It’s bizarre—perhaps even intended to appear bizarre—and significant that the person or persons who prepared and sent the anthrax-laced letters had to have known that the strain of anthrax would be traced back to a very limited field of suspects. That’s all been thought through many times by investigators inside and outside law enforcement, I’m sure, but it’s mind-boggling to contemplate.
WOW! I just saw a headline story on CNN: they had photos of the blowup camel fitted with sexual devices and they interviewed the Arab-American who was repeatedly abused and then framed by his colleagues. How could such bizarre behaviour ever occur in a top secret biological weapons lab, they asked.
They had a team of reporters tracking down Dr Zack, but when they cornered him in a supermarket carpark he refused to talk. He said he wanted his lawyers present.
Then they cut to a segment with FBI Director Robert Mueller, asking him why he allowed top government officials access to the day-to-day running of an FBI investigation, even when such information was being regularly leaked to reporters? Mueller’s eyes were darting left and right while he fumbled for answers.
Then they went knocking on the door of Ms Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, who came out screaming yelling abuse at them. They asked her about her past connections with some Zionist groups, and she slammed the door.
Finally, the anchor asked why other US media organisations had failed to pursue these lines of inquiry for so long.
And then…?
Then I woke up.
Back in BushWorld, where such things never, ever, ever happen.
Now it’s time for everybody else to WAKE UP!!!
The anthrax letters were addressed to two Democratic Senators, Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Why those two in particular?
At the time Daschle was the Senate Majority leader and Leahy was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both were identified in the media as holding up the proposed Patriot Act because of concerns that some parts of it would violate civil liberties.
Conclusion? Whoever did this was trying to push through the Patriot Act!
Now if somebody thought it was a good idea to have a “New Pearl Harbour” like 9-11, mightn’t they think that getting the Patriot Act though in the aftermath was also critically important?
Leahy: [Slowly, with a little shake of the head]
From http://www.vermontdailybriefing.com Leahy interview Sept 2007 commenting on unresolved anthrax terrorist letter case
Bin Laden is still free as well. The Bush administration and its DOJ have priorities which they rate much higher than justice. They may be protecting a right-wing perpetrator of the anthrax attacks, but maybe they just don’t care.
Thanks, an extremely interesting report!
Where was that exchange shown? Do you have a link?