Rush Holt: Investigate the Anthrax Attacks
Now here’s a investigative commission I can support (h/t Glenn):
Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12) today introduced the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act of 2009, legislation that would establish a Congressional commission to investigate the 2001 anthrax attacks and the federal government’s response to and investigation of the attacks. The bipartisan commission would make recommendations to the President and Congress on how the country can best prevent and respond to any future bioterrorism attack. The attacks evidently originated from a postal box in Holt’s Central New Jersey congressional district, disrupting the lives and livelihoods of many of his constituents. Holt has consistently raised questions about the federal investigation into the attacks.
“All of us – but especially the families of the victims of the anthrax attacks – deserve credible answers about how the attacks happened and whether the case really is closed,” Holt said. “The Commission, like the 9/11 Commission, would do that, and it would help American families know that the government is better prepared to protect them and their children from future bioterrorism attacks.”
Under Holt’s legislation, the commission would be comprised of no more than six members of from the same political party. The commission would hold public hearings, except in situations where classified information would be discussed. The commission would have to consult the National Academies of Sciences for recommendations on scientific staff to serve on the Commission. The Commission’s final report would be due 18 months after the Commission begins operations.
“Myriad questions remain about the anthrax attacks and the government’s bungled response to the attacks,” Holt said. “One of the most effective oversight mechanisms we can employ to get answers to those questions is a 9/11 style Commission.” [my emphasis]
The FBI’s claim to have solved the anthrax case gets increasingly discredited every week, even as FBI struggles to set up a narrowly scoped scientific review to try to bolster their argument.
It’s high time we looked into the gaping holes in the FBI’s story and figure out whether we still have domestic bioterrorists running free amongst us.
Yes please; lets have another 9/11 Commission.
In last year’s threads about Ivins you made a lot of points about the investment of Miller, Libby, Cheney and others in defending against (or hyping) the threat of biological attacks. It was interesting to see a 1999 Libby piece on the subject footnoted yesterday in that OLC document in support of secretly suspending the constitution.
The Anthrax Attacks were first reported in Oct. 2001, but a news story from May 2001 (that was pushed to the side in the wake of 9/11 hysteria) is also important to consider in analyzing possible sources, motives and the importance of a full investigation. ABC News reported in May 2001 that:
“In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.” (link at sig)
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”"
For anyone who doubts that the Joint Chiefs would have ever had that much audacity, consider that the article, and the documents themselves show that the “Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba.”
Given Clarke’s statement that Rumsfeld began talking about attacking Iraq on 9/11 and “didn’t seem bothered” when Clarke told him the WTC attack was likely from AQ and “had nothing to do with Iraq,” the timing of the anthrax attacks worked to assure that the public would not ask any of the questions Clarke raised as the PNAC goals converged with the Shock Doctrine.
Clarke described how, after he raised objections that attacking Iraq and not Afghanistan would destroy international support for any attack, the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal reluctantly agreed, calling the plans “Afghanistan first.”
Because the anthrax attacks paved the way for what happened “second,” investigations are needed to ensure that the Joint Chiefs’ plans- first proposed to and rejected by Kennedy wrt to generating support for an attack on Cuba- weren’t simply postponed 40 years for an Iraq attack, as “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers [did] cause a helpful wave of national indignation” that built support for the war in Iraq.
[I screwed up the quote when I left this comment at UT so tried again here!]
DIGG WAS OPENED by PhilPerspective – thnx,Phil
YAY! Rush Holt, liberal progressive… not. I wonder if this is feel-good fluff offered up to obscure his latest doings.
If Rush Holt wanted to defend America and American ideals he’d stop writing corporate-inspired bills that give control of American elections to corporate software divisions.
(Literally.. once again under his latest effort it will be illegal for the public to examine the software running our elections.)
And I understand that, as Holt is a corporate-favored New Democrat, that some people have some questions for him concerning holding banking interests over the interests of his constituents…
” But the most startling information in the state’s 13-page report (.pdf) is not why the system lost votes, which Wired.com previously covered in detail, but that some versions of Diebold’s vote tabulation system, known as the Global Election Management System (Gems), include a button that allows someone to delete audit logs from the system.
The Clear button isn’t the only problem with the audit log in the Premier/Diebold system. Wired.com previously reported other issues with the logs — for example, they don’t record significant events that occur in the tabulation system, such as when someone deletes votes from the software. “
http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok…..finds.html
Saw that at Bradblog. Same ol’ same ol’… So… why does Holt insist on making such e-voting software a federally mandated corporate secret? And insist he does, year after year in draft after draft of his “election reform” bill.
It’s especially striking since his original versions of the bill mandated open source software and hardware?
The answer? The corporate lobbyists for the EVM vendors had a talk with him. And ever since that talk it’s been dodge, evade and lie with each version of that bill. And yes… this is relevant to the anthrax investigation, which is why I brought it up.
Mayhaps the original draft bill from Holt for such an investigative commission would be simple and effective… his electiom reform bill was… but I don’t think that happy situation will last very long when the lobbyists for any corporations that might be involved get ahold of him.
The Ivins investigation seems badly handled. Like the political prosecutions in Rove’s Alabama, the PR function got well ahead of building a credible case that would withstand basic scrutiny, let alone the informed cross-examination of competent defense counsel.
If the strain(s) used came from a US government bio-weapons labe, the culprits would seem limited to three categories: rogue employees with authorized access, absurdly competent outside players who got in and out apparently without leaving a trace, or US operatives acting on orders.
I have no idea which is more probable, but none seem worth discounting until all the facts are in (as General Turgidson might say).
No doubt… and no doubt that such an investigation needs doing, badly, but unless such a bill takes off on its own I’d not count on Holt pushing through anything usable.
Jumping on a hot-button issue is one thing, but carrying through is another. And Holt is… easily distracted… when it seems that corporations might suffer.
I just flashed on this. There has never really been any evidence at all that Iraq had a viable anthrax program after the 1980’s. Yet there were a lot of leaks to Judith Miller building up the hysteria abut bio-weapons prior to 9/11, including claims in her book that Saddam was still involved in programs.
Then 9/11…with assertions that the subsequent Anthrax attacks must be a case of terrorism, using Iraqi anthrax spores (which were brought to the US but appear to have not existed in Iraq after 1992).
So who was leaking this info the Miller, and when. This sounds like a case where whoever leaked that information might want to have triggered a conflict with Iraq.
That… and to hammer recalcitrant Democrats and news media into line?
My 3 cents worth:
1) Cheney and other WH Staff took CIPRO BEFORE the anthrax attacks with what can only be described as foreknowledge
2) One of the recipients of an anthrax envelope was the Editor of a tabloid that published pics of a drunk Jenna Bush in a compromising position
3) Right after the anthrax attacks, many GOP stalwarts and their select comrades in the MSM parroted talking points attributing the attacks to Saddam Hussein — without any sort of evidence whatsoever — and seemingly to foment war sentiments
>“We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.”
1960 was a little late for anyone in the Navy to “remember the Maine”, but there was probably still institutional memory of what had happened in Havana harbor in 1898. I wonder …
Responding to a commenter above who is cynical about Rush Holt, I want to mention as someone who works in an election department that I don’t support giving source code out. I’d prefer eliminating touch screens and requiring 5% recounts everywhere.
“I don’t support giving source code out”
And open source code is not a magic cure-all for security anyway… it’s just often vastly more secure than proprietary code.
But that’s not the question. The question is this: would you make public knowledge of how our elections are being run illegal?
Holt would… though he’ll hem and haw and outright lie about it. But usually you’ll just get a non-response like “I don’t support giving source code out” or something equally irrelevant.
That’s not meant to call you out… election officials and workers have been as much a victim of Holt’s grand words, limp spine and weaselish politicking as everyone else involved with election integrity.
“I’d prefer eliminating touch screens”
Banning DRE’s would have been the first thing to do, of course. Too bad Holt wasted two years telling us it couldn’t be done.
(Side note for onlookers: Direct Record Electronic machines are the ones that use teh special vaporware ballots… a “touchscreen” is just a control interface, the one most often used by DRE’s. But Holt deliberately wasted a lot of time (again) by claiming that the election integrity movement was trying to ban things like ballot marking devices for the disabled that happened to use touchscreen interfaces. He’s pulled a lot of that kind of BS.)
But I guess his corporate buddies have finally seen the writing on the wall with regard to DRE machines… Holt’s latest version finally bans them… at a price. The price being that the corporations are still to retain control over how our ballots are counted and that this control is to be federally mandated.
“… and requiring 5% recounts everywhere.”
The solid number, in this case 5%, tells anyone trying to game the election how much they need to game it by and what tactics will and won’t work.
These partial recounts, which have been mistakenly referred to as “audits” for some time now, can help… but it needs to be a sliding scale. Holt’s bill at one point adopted the “audit” protocols of election integrity advocate Kathy Dopp… and then a scientific study in CA indicated that even Dopp’s protocol could be gamed.
Meanwhile Dopp and supporters engaged in a Holt-instigated (literally) circular flame war with other EI advocates that must have had Holt in stitches with laughter. Nowadays… “cynical” is one word to describe EI advocates in their reactions to Holt. A better word is “experienced”.
But partial recounts can be a good idea. It just still needs work. But time and again Holt wants to pass his bill and lock everything down now… sans further meaningful study.
(His versions of the bill always contain lots of non-meaningful studies… i.e. studies that don’t question the core assumptions of the bill.)
So, this is all I’ll say on this thread. I’m going to put up an oxdown diary when we’ve finished analyzing Holt’s latest at Bradblog and Blackboxvoting.
But the point and the warning remain, one learned the hard way by the election integrity community: Holt is a veteran machine politician who doesn’t seem to actually carry through much… unless you’re a corporation.