Anthrax suspect dies in apparent suicide

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby compared2what? » Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:59 am

justdrew wrote:
compared2what? wrote:Can anyone out there hear me? I'd practically bet my non-existent bottom dollar that for whatever reason, the government has been writing this story in order to provoke exactly the kind of response they're getting here on this thread, as well as from the public at large right from the start. I don't know the reason. But if it's theirs, it's not one that benefits us. I base this conviction on what I know too well is the near-impossibility of the press coming up with what they're reporting in any way other than having it fed to them.

I think that's worth noting, at least.


they MAY be getting ready to "fall on their face" and spin it as just another agency screw-up, a few token heads rolling - with the addendum that, "now we'll never be able to know who was really behind it."

the lack of choir harmony may also be due to some serious factionalism within 'the government' in terms of how to move forward.


My fear is that it's more Overton-Window-esque than that. Because if you get the populace accustomed enough to the idea that they live in an illegal police state about which nothing can be done, then nothing gets done, and you won't have to go to the trouble of actually establishing one formally, which would provoke too much opposition at this point.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:04 am

compared2what? wrote:Can anyone out there hear me? I'd practically bet my non-existent bottom dollar that for whatever reason, the government has been writing this story in order to provoke exactly the kind of response they're getting here on this thread, as well as from the public at large right from the start. I don't know the reason. But if it's theirs, it's not one that benefits us. I base this conviction on what I know too well is the near-impossibility of the press coming up with what they're reporting in any way other than having it fed to them.

I think that's worth noting, at least.

Nobody is pushing it other than a few disparate dissenters. Yes, it's unusual that any dissent is brooked, but this level of bullshit is undeniably obvious to anyone informed and educated, so it's best to cater a little to this class of news consumer with some meaningless "concerned" skepticism. Of course, it may be a test to see who cares (1% = dangerous) vs. who doesn't (99% = tame or ignorant), but I sincerely doubt it. "They" seem to just want to wish the whole thing away.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6577
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:20 am

Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 2:53 am Post subject:

chiggerbit wrote:
Quote:
It comes complete with a flattering photo of this ex-druggie, ex-biker skank.

I don't believe a WORD out of this woman's mouth...



Yikes, Nordic, do you realize how judgmental that sounds?
Quote:
...A little odd she's the ONLY one who has had any "evidence", anything incriminating about this guy. His own co-workers do not accept any of this...



There appear to be quite a few witnesses, such as the people in this session...
Quote:
Her counseling client, Bruce E. Ivins, had announced in a group therapy session the evening before that he was a suspect in the 2001 anthrax investigation and had a plan to kill his co-workers.




...but with all the hoopla and snotty opinions being papered all over the internet about Duley, can you imagine why the people in this group session don't come forward publicly?

Personally, I don't think anyone has enough information to jump to judgment yet, one way or the other. But, depending on the laws of her state, this woman may have had a legal obligation to make her report if he was making statements as she claimed.


I can't believe you are still serious about this. What is your evidence that Ivins even could have pulled this off alone, much less that he did?


I think she's just mad that I referred to a female as a skank.

I want to see proof that the FBI didn't pay her to make this shit up.

And I want to see proof that there were in fact people at this group meeting.

I don't buy anything she says.

If the FBI would pay Ivins' own son $2.5 million to say shit about him, you can bet they offered her a pretty penny.
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby compared2what? » Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:13 am

stickdog99 wrote:
compared2what? wrote:Can anyone out there hear me? I'd practically bet my non-existent bottom dollar that for whatever reason, the government has been writing this story in order to provoke exactly the kind of response they're getting here on this thread, as well as from the public at large right from the start. I don't know the reason. But if it's theirs, it's not one that benefits us. I base this conviction on what I know too well is the near-impossibility of the press coming up with what they're reporting in any way other than having it fed to them.

I think that's worth noting, at least.

Nobody is pushing it other than a few disparate dissenters. Yes, it's unusual that any dissent is brooked, but this level of bullshit is undeniably obvious to anyone informed and educated, so it's best to cater a little to this class of news consumer with some meaningless "concerned" skepticism. Of course, it may be a test to see who cares (1% = dangerous) vs. who doesn't (99% = tame or ignorant), but I sincerely doubt it. "They" seem to just want to wish the whole thing away.


Okay. I'll stop fretting about it, I guess. Because for one thing, I can't adduce any evidence in support of the assertion, beyond a familiarity with the newsroom operations at the Times, the newsroom of which is like the fucking Kremlin to insiders as much as it is to outsiders, anyway, making it literally unknowable, and...you have just prompted me to realize, therefore a waste of time. Thanks! I feel better now.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Mon Aug 11, 2008 7:19 am

stickdog99 wrote:
compared2what? wrote:Can anyone out there hear me? I'd practically bet my non-existent bottom dollar that for whatever reason, the government has been writing this story in order to provoke exactly the kind of response they're getting here on this thread, as well as from the public at large right from the start. I don't know the reason. But if it's theirs, it's not one that benefits us. I base this conviction on what I know too well is the near-impossibility of the press coming up with what they're reporting in any way other than having it fed to them.

I think that's worth noting, at least.

Nobody is pushing it other than a few disparate dissenters. Yes, it's unusual that any dissent is brooked, but this level of bullshit is undeniably obvious to anyone informed and educated, so it's best to cater a little to this class of news consumer with some meaningless "concerned" skepticism. Of course, it may be a test to see who cares (1% = dangerous) vs. who doesn't (99% = tame or ignorant), but I sincerely doubt it. "They" seem to just want to wish the whole thing away.


Well, look how "Bush lied to go to war, and stole the 2000 and 2004 elections" is now fully accepted canon and no longer fringe ideas. Hell in the 90's, "JFK was killed in an inside job" was socially acceptable, now it seems it no longer is.

I guess the term is limited hangout. Pat Tilman intentionally murdered?
Ivins not the lone nut behind anthrax? White House forging Iraq documents? Sure.

US intentionally thwarting the FBI to stop Saudi/Pakistani backed hijackers? Fat chance we'll see Olbermann talk about such things.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:09 am

Stickdog said:
I can't believe you are still serious about this. What is your evidence that Ivins even could have pulled this off alone, much less that he did?


Read what I said again and tell me who I was talking about. Irivns.... or Duley?

As for Irvins, he has been described by all his friends as very bright. In addition, earlier in this thread, someone had posted about one of the workers in that lab talking about how someone had been illicitly using her special microscope or piece of equipment(?I'll go looking for the reference later) off the books, and it was obvious that the person wasn't familiar with how it works. Which isn't to say that Irvins did it, just that a person or people were doing it, and that they were out of their area of expertise. Sorry, being "outside his area of expertise" hasn't swayed me yet.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Fat Lady Singing » Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:42 am

What I'm wondering is... why *aren't* they coming up with some sort of Iran connection? Seems like they want to go in, and this would be a great opportunity to create a rationale, but they're not. It's being played as a lone nut, with an emphasis on the "nut".

And of course, lone nuts (almost) never are, so what is it they don't want us to see here? Their own incompetence? I stopped buying "incompetence" a while ago... Perhaps a currently active terrrrst group? Why not take that opportunity to paralyze us with fear?

What's the advantage to the lone nut, in general? In general, it seems to be to direct our attention to a single person when in fact many are behind the event, and those many need to stay hidden.

What's the advantage to the lone nut, in this case? Who needs to stay hidden? It just doesn't make sense that they *wouldn't* come up with some Iran angle, giving them the pretext they need. So why aren't they?

My theory of Deep Politics is that you can only read the traces, perhaps palimpsest-like, or perhaps wilderness tracker-like, to form an idea of what might be going on. Here, the traces are particularly confusing.
User avatar
Fat Lady Singing
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:13 am

What I'm wondering is... why *aren't* they coming up with some sort of Iran connection?



Good question, FLS. I went back to check on Philip Zack again,to check to see who his accomplices were, thinking there were of couple of others who also got fired, and to check further into the "sloppiness" of that unit back then, and found that Wiki had a piece on him. Haha! At one point everyone was pointing fingers at Zack because he was a Jew, and it turns out he must be Catholic.

Anyone know anything about Dr. Marian Rippy? But what I'd really like to know is what this means:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zack


"....Zack was among those: "eager to continue working on projects USAMRIID said they should stop....
Also, this is incredible!

"....^ Before the anthrax letters were reported in the media, but after they had been posted, a letter postmarked September 21 and addressed to the "Town of Quantico police" was received that accused Dr. Ayaad Assaad of being a terrorist who was planning a biological attack. As a result Assaad was questioned on October 2, 2001 by the FBI. The letter was analyzed by Don Foster, an expert in the field of textual analysis who found the writing to be a perfect match to a female officer at Ft. Detrick. The Amerithrax Task Force declared the letter a hoax and took no further action on it.[1]..."
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:38 am

Has this been posted yet?

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2 ... index.html

Fort Detrick's anthrax mystery
Who tried to frame Dr. Ayaad Assaad, a former biowarfare researcher at the Army lab? Was it the same person responsible for last fall's anthrax mail terrorism?
By Laura Rozen

Jan. 26, 2002 | On Oct. 2, Ayaad Assaad, a U.S. government scientist and former biowarfare researcher, received a call from an FBI agent asking him to come in for a talk. It was well before anthrax panic gripped the nation -- in fact, it was the same day that photo editor Robert Stevens, 63, was admitted to a Florida hospital. It wasn't until the next day that Stevens was diagnosed with inhalation anthrax, and another two days later, on Oct. 5, when he would become the first of five eventual fatalities caused by the apparent bioterrorist attack.

The day after hearing from the FBI, Assaad met with special agents J. Gregory Lelyegian and Mark Buie in the FBI's Washington field office, along with Assaad's attorney, Rosemary McDermott. They showed Assaad a detailed, unsigned, computer-typed letter with a startling accusation: that the 53-year-old Assaad, an Environmental Protection Agency scientist who filed an age discrimination suit against the U.S. Army for dismissing him from a biowarfare lab, might be a bioterrorist.

"Dr. Assaad is a potential biological terrorist," the letter stated, according to Assaad and McDermott. The letter was received by the FBI in Quantico, Va., but Assaad did not learn from the FBI where it had been mailed from. "I have worked with Dr. Assaad," the letter continued, "and I heard him say that he has a vendetta against the U.S. government and that if anything happens to him, he told his sons to carry on."

According to Assaad, "The letter-writer clearly knew my entire background, my training in both chemical and biological agents, my security clearance, what floor where I work now, that I have two sons, what train I take to work, and where I live.

"The letter warned the FBI to stop me," he said.

After their meeting, Assad was thanked by the FBI agents, who have not contacted him since. The bureau says it cleared Assaad of the anonymous allegations against him.

"We received an anonymous letter with certain allegations about Dr. Assaad," Chris Murray, an FBI spokesman, told Salon Thursday. "Our investigation has determined those allegations are unfounded. Our investigation is complete. Period." But Assaad believes there is a possible link between the person who sent the unsigned letter to the FBI and the terrorist who sent anthrax to Democratic politicians and prominent members of the media. Whoever it was seemed to display eerie foreknowledge of the biological attacks, since the letter was sent to the FBI well before any anthrax terror attacks were known to the public.

And there is also the fact that Assaad used to work at the U.S. Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), in Fort Detrick, Md., a biowarfare lab many critics believe might have been the source of the stolen anthrax. According to internal Army documents in Assaad's own possession (and first reported about in the Hartford Courant), 27 specimens, including anthrax, Ebola and the hantavirus were lost in the early 1990s from the lab. The documents paint a chaotic picture of a poorly managed lab.

Assaad had his own unhappy experience at the lab: Before he was dismissed, he had run-ins with colleagues, once filing a racial discrimination complaint against some of them. And he believes that if the letter-writer was someone who at one point worked at the lab, it would explain why he knew so much about Assaad and would think that Assaad would make an easy target to frame.

"I'm the perfect scapegoat," Dr. Assaad explained. "I'm Arab-American. I'm a scientist who knows about biological and chemical agents. I'm suing the U.S. Army," he said. "Whoever did this clearly wants revenge."

There is no proof that former colleagues of Assaad at the Fort Detrick facility were behind the attempt to frame him or the anthrax mailings. But there is no doubt that security at the lab was notoriously sloppy. And government investigators hunting for the anthrax mail terrorist are reportedly looking at the lab as a possible source of the toxin.

Assaad worked for eight years, from 1989-97, at the Army-run lab, where civilian and military scientists with top security clearances handle the most lethal biological agents known. Assaad's tenure at the lab was not a particularly happy one. He was ultimately dismissed from the lab in 1997, along with six other older scientists, when the lab announced it needed to downsize because of budget restrictions. But Assaad disputes that reason in his age discrimination suit, which is still pending. He shared with Salon copies of Army internal documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Assaad's attorney, that are from the Army's own investigation into allegations of racial discrimination brought by Assaad.

But he is not alone in his concerns about his former colleagues. Another scientist who worked at the lab at the time -- and who admits to having been part of a group in the lab that called itself the "Camel Club," organized as a kind of drinking club that on the side ridiculed the Egyptian-born Assaad -- said he also believes that the anthrax in the recent terror scare came from Fort Detrick's USAMRIID.

"As soon as it came out" about the anthrax letters, "the first thing that came to my mind was Fort Detrick," said the scientist, who requested anonymity and is now employed in academia. "I don't know how many labs are utilizing anthrax from Detrick. Detrick represents a repository of many organisms, and they would send it out to various other labs. A lot of people who were working on anthrax in this country got their anthrax from Fort Detrick."

The scientist also claimed that he understood DNA analysis being performed by a private lab in Rockville, Md., had already determined that the source of the anthrax in the letter sent to Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy was from Detrick. However, the private lab has told journalists that it will be another two weeks to a month before they publicly reveal their results.

According to interviews with Assaad and this scientist, along with additional Army investigative transcripts obtained by Salon, the Army's biowarfare research lab in the early 1990s was an organizational disaster area. A big problem at the lab, which apparently contributed to specimens going missing, was that after the Gulf War, USAMRIID decided to phase out work some scientists had been doing on projects that the Army lab no longer considered crucial to their core mission of researching vaccines against bioweapons. Many scientists who had been engaged in other projects, such as Lt. Col. Phil Zack, who had been researching the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), were eager to continue working on projects USAMRIID said they should stop. What followed, the documents reveal, were scientists sneaking into the Army biowarfare lab to work on pet projects after-hours and on weekends, former workers like Zack, who left in 1991, still being let in to do lab work, pressure applied to technicians to help out, documents going missing, and deliberate mislabeling of specimens among other efforts to hide unsanctioned lab work.

Lt. Col. Michael Langford, an Army scientist who became head of the USAMRIID experimental pathology division in February 1992, was interviewed by a USAMRIID investigator in the spring of 1992. The transcripts of that and other interviews reveal shocking lapses of security and resistance to oversight by USAMRIID lab scientists, including some of the same ones who engaged in harassment of Assaad.

"At the time I took over the Experimental Pathology branch on the 3rd of February [1992] it was obvious to me that there was little or no organization of that group and little or no accountability of many things," Langford told the Army investigator, Col. Thomas J. Taylor.

Langford describes walking in to work one morning and seeing a group of lab scientists and technicians huddled behind closed doors in the room that houses an electron microscope. What Langford concluded was that certain scientists were covertly working on projects at night and on weekends that had been ordered halted by their division chief. He further concluded that employees were desperately trying to find old specimens of biological agents, including anthrax, they could "re-label" to cover up specimens that had gone missing in the chaos of prohibited, after-hours lab work.

"I walked in and the lights were on, the scope was off, and they were intensely looking for these blocks [of anthrax]," Langford described. "What was indicated to me was that perhaps these specimens were bootleg so to speak, they were going to cover them with old specimens, and when the old specimens disappeared, they were going to take these old anthrax blocks and substitute them. Well, when those were unavailable then these new blocks [of anthrax] mysteriously disappeared. So of course the probability is high that there was a problem there."

Langford also described to the investigator strong resistance from his underlings and other scientists to his efforts to manage the group. Among those Langford considered management problems were Marian Rippy, a researcher in the experimental pathology division. (Zack and Rippy had also been reprimanded by the Army for harassing Assaad.) Langford said he considered a number of those on his staff to be "extremely difficult to deal with, would volunteer almost nothing, nearly almost always had to be given a written request to get a response, were very defiant, were very obstructive, and I also heard rumors that ... Marian [Rippy] had made comments to the people in that lab basically to undermine me, you know, when I was coming in there," according to Langford.

"We were not to continue any work; in fact I was aware that [Pathology division commander Lt. Col. Nancy Jaax] had secured the SIV materials and people because again it appeared from many sources that Phil Zack was asking people to work basically covertly and continue his SIV work against obvious clear mandates and directives of the division chief," Langford told the investigator. (In an interesting side note, Jaax, whom Langford refers to, is the protagonist of the Richard Preston book "The Hot Zone," about an Ebola outbreak in lab monkeys in Reston, Va., in 1989. The real-life events were also the basis of the movie "Outbreak," starring Dustin Hoffman.)

It was during this period, from 1990 to early 1992, when scientists apparently pursued projects covertly at the lab, that the Army facility appears to have lost track of 27 specimens, including anthrax, Ebola and hantavirus. USAMRIID told media this week that any specimens that went missing were rendered harmless by various preservation and radiation processes -- a contention Assaad says is not true. He says the specimens leave behind a residue that could be reactivated.

Assaad's personal experience at that lab makes him particularly skeptical. He complains of behavior from colleagues that, while certainly not necessarily that of potential terrorists, does seem like symptoms of a poorly managed lab that was out of control.

In particular, Assaad, who is Egyptian-American, was the target of the group of USAMRIID scientists and lab technicians who called themselves the Camel Club. Among his antagonists were colleagues in Fort Detrick lab's experimental pathology division, Zack and Rippy.

Using a stuffed camel as a kind of mascot, the Camel Club composed a poem, "The Rhyme of the Ancient Camellier," with the apparent purpose of humiliating Assaad. It begins:

"Ayaad Assaad was the start,
with a reputation for not having heart
A 'skimmer' without equal
We hope there's no sequel
In his honor we created this beast
It represents life lower than yeast
Whoever is voted this sucker,
you can't duck her, You must accept blame,
And bear all the shame Unlike Assaad,
that first motherfucker"

The poem continues for five typewritten rhyming pages, ending with:

Well it's time for the camel to pass.
So let's all reach and raise up a glass.
Let's give'm the credit,
the one who will get it,
the poor bastard we're gonna harass.


Assaad theorizes that the Camel Club and the racial discrimination he experienced were at least partly an outgrowth of a dispute he had with Zack and Rippy over the authorship of a scientific paper for which he says he had done the research. Rippy and Zack, Assaad says, had done only minor work, but wanted to put their names on the research paper, and he says he felt they didn't deserve it. Assaad says the dispute escalated, with Rippy and Zack threatening to be disruptive and humiliate him at a scientific conference where he delivered his paper's findings. Then, he says, their harassment took an ethnic cast, because of his Arabic heritage.

Assaad said he filed a formal complaint with the Army after his supervisor ignored him. The commander of the U.S. Army lab investigated the complaint and found in Assaad's favor, and singled out Zack and Rippy for criticism for being at the center of the Camel Club. (The Army investigation documents further revealed that the two, both married, were also having an affair.)

"Based upon your complaint, I directed that an informal investigation be conducted," USAMRIID's then-commander, Col. Ronald Williams, wrote Assaad in a memo in August 1992. "The investigation revealed that Lieutenant Colonel Zack and Dr. Rippy had participated in discriminatory behavior.

"On behalf of the United States of America, the Army, and this Institute, I wish to genuinely and humbly apologize for this behavior," Williams' memo continued.

Before the investigation ended, both Zack and Rippy were reprimanded. Then Zack left USAMRIID in December 1991, first heading to the Army's Walter Reed Institute, then going to the private pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, and then to a company in Colorado acquired by St. Louis' Nexstar Financial Management. Several calls by Salon to his last known phone number and address in Boulder, Colo., went unreturned, and Nexstar says it no longer has any record of Zack. Rippy, who left USAMRIID shortly after Zack, in February 1992, worked for a while at Eli Lilly, but could not be located by Salon.

Assaad is puzzled that after clearing him of the accusation that he could be a bioterrorist, the FBI showed no interest in talking with him about his days at Fort Detrick. "The whole world wants to talk to me, except the FBI," he said, as his lawyer's phones rang nonstop this week, with media organizations seeking interviews with him. "Something's wrong here."

But while the FBI may not be interested in talking with Assaad further, federal authorities increasingly seem to believe that the anthrax letters were sent by a U.S. government scientist -- and not by the Iraqis or al-Qaida, as some hawks have continued to insist over the past few months, while hundreds of Islamic and Arab-born immigrants have been questioned and detained by the FBI and INS.

"I can tell you there are scientists out there who do have military connections that we are focusing on, at least that connection," Kevin Donovan, FBI special agent in charge of the Newark bureau, said at a press conference Wednesday.

For his part, Assaad says, "I want people to know the truth," and wants to show the American people that Arab-Americans are not the enemy. Should the FBI trace the anthrax attacks back to his former lab, Assaad may have gone a long way toward his goal.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Mon Aug 11, 2008 2:22 pm

The reason they're not blaming the Anthrax on Iran is because they cannot.

It's beyond dispute that the spores came from Ft. Detrick and were, in fact, an American military product.

That's why the story is so laughably bad -- because they're trying to force it to dove-tail with the known facts.

And like all bad writing, contrivances stick out like big loud flashing lights.
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Aug 11, 2008 2:31 pm

chiggerbit wrote:Stickdog said:
I can't believe you are still serious about this. What is your evidence that Ivins even could have pulled this off alone, much less that he did?


Read what I said again and tell me who I was talking about. Irivns.... or Duley?

As for Irvins, he has been described by all his friends as very bright. In addition, earlier in this thread, someone had posted about one of the workers in that lab talking about how someone had been illicitly using her special microscope or piece of equipment(?I'll go looking for the reference later) off the books, and it was obvious that the person wasn't familiar with how it works. Which isn't to say that Irvins did it, just that a person or people were doing it, and that they were out of their area of expertise. Sorry, being "outside his area of expertise" hasn't swayed me yet.

So you aren't wholly convinced that Ivins couldn't have made highly lethal, highly milled dried anthrax in a few hours of OT in a government lab with other researchers around him coming and going? Good to see that the "guilty until proven innocent" doctrine is alive and well on RI. After all, the ex-junkie ex-biker habitual drunk driver did scribble out the damning claims that Ivins was frustrated about being targeted as a mass murderer and that he became angry with her when he figured out she was telling the FBI things he had told her in a confidential mental health counselor/patient setting.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6577
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Fat Lady Singing » Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:22 pm

Nordic wrote:The reason they're not blaming the Anthrax on Iran is because they cannot.

It's beyond dispute that the spores came from Ft. Detrick and were, in fact, an American military product.

That's why the story is so laughably bad -- because they're trying to force it to dove-tail with the known facts.

And like all bad writing, contrivances stick out like big loud flashing lights.


Hi Nordic: Well, yes, but why not have this be part of the contrivance: he was trying to sell it to Iranians or terrrrrrists or "bad guys"?

I agree that the story they're putting together is laughably bad -- I guess I wonder, why not take it one step further? It's not like people are actually buying it anyway...
User avatar
Fat Lady Singing
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:41 pm

Assaad said he filed a formal complaint with the Army after his supervisor ignored him. The commander of the U.S. Army lab investigated the complaint and found in Assaad's favor, and singled out Zack and Rippy for criticism for being at the center of the Camel Club. (The Army investigation documents further revealed that the two, both married, were also having an affair.)

Good thing we're reading about Edwards' affair lately instead...

Preserving 'the lone gunman' meme is at play here (Nov. 22 45th anniversary) besides capping an infoliability before waving 9/11 around for (s)election theater at summer conventions and the final stretch to November.

A biker named Aguilar in California was just arrested because that's also the name of a prominent JFK researcher, Dr. Gary Aguilar.

All these stories interlink through the same language mechanisms serving the same agenda.
Last edited by Hugh Manatee Wins on Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:43 pm

Nordic wrote:.....
And like all bad writing, contrivances stick out like big loud flashing lights.


Definitely. A useful marker for choosing where to look more closely.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:25 pm

So you aren't wholly convinced that Ivins couldn't have made highly lethal, highly milled dried anthrax in a few hours of OT in a government lab with other researchers around him coming and going?


In that lab? What a laugh. In a word, SLOPPY. And it sounds like it isn't the only one like that.

Good to see that the "guilty until proven innocent" doctrine is alive and well on RI.


Do I need to say this again? I do not believe that there is enough information made public yet to make a judgement one way or the other about Irvins. You, on the other hand, have made up your mind, mind closed...er, case closed.


After all, the ex-junkie ex-biker habitual drunk driver did scribble out the damning claims


No, I do not automatically find a recovering addict to be uncredible. But that biker bit, I'm not so sure about that. You know how all those bikers are--not an honest one in the lot. As for Duley's hand-writing out the restraining order on the courthouse forms at the courthouse, that's the way it's done, silly, unless you are one of the rare ones who is so cool and so organized as to take your printer with you. Myself, if the form had been typed and printed off, I would have found it to be highly organized and more likely to have been "assisted", if you get what I mean. But handwritten is congruent with the narrative of urgency.



..that Ivins was frustrated about being targeted as a mass murderer and that he became angry with her when he figured out she was telling the FBI things he had told her in a confidential mental health counselor/patient setting.


I could almost guarantee you that that state has laws on the books with regards to professionals/counselors/therapists reporting these kinds of incidents, just as they require professionals to report child abuse. Duley most likely had a legal responsibility to report, and would have been liable had she not reported and something had happened. As for moral obligation, I'd bet Irvins' wife has a bit of 'splainin to do. We could be talking about a whole different scenario today if Duley hadn't reported when she did, and it might have been quite ugly, and instead some of you here would have been blaming Duley for NOT reporting, and seen all sorts of conspiracies in it.

Again, I am not speaking about Irvins guilt here, I am simply saying that, based on the information available, it looks to me like Duley made the right choice.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 159 guests