Those of you familiar with my work in debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists might be surprised at my attitude toward the case of suicide by the prime suspect in the anthrax attacks of 2001. In this matter, there is so much smoke that I will not dismiss the idea of conspiracy – not necessarily involving the government but such a theory cannot be ignored – despite my belief that there is usually a much simpler and boring explanation for most events surrounded by conspiracy theories.
The suicide of Bruce Ivins, a prime suspect in the 2001 anthrax mail poisonings will certainly give the conspiracy jobbers something to wag their tongues about for a few days. But until a little more information becomes available, I would hold to the facts and not speculate too forcefully – yet.
There are certainly troubling aspects to the idea that the anthrax attacks were planned and carried out by an employee who works in a government lab. And the strange way the investigation was handled by the FBI and the Army leaves many questions unanswered.
There is also the timing of the attacks – so soon after 9/11 that at the time, it was easy to believe America was under attack by Islamic militants on several fronts.
To those inclined to believe the worst of Bush and the American government, the answer is simple; Ivins was a tool of the Administration and that the Bushies sought to gin up fear of terrorism to pass their dictatorial agenda that included the Patriot Act and other domestic spy initiatives. He didn’t commit suicide but was killed to keep him quiet.
Nice movie script but several problems are immediately apparent. First, according to this LA Times article, Ivins had been depressed for months, had run out of money to pay for legal fees, and actually told his therapist he wanted to commit suicide:
Soon after the government’s settlement with Hatfill was announced June 27, Ivins began showing signs of serious strain.One of his longtime colleagues told The Times that Ivins, who was being treated for depression, indicated to a therapist that he was considering suicide.
Soon thereafter, family members and local police officers escorted Ivins from USAMRIID, where his access to sensitive areas was curtailed, the colleague said.
Ivins was committed to a facility in Frederick for treatment of his depression. On July 24, he was released from the facility, operated by Sheppard Pratt Health System. A telephone call that same day by The Times verified that Ivins’ government voice mail was still functioning at the bacteriology division of USAMRIID.
The scientist faced forced retirement, planned for September, said his longtime colleague, who described Ivins as emotionally fractured by the federal scrutiny.
“He didn’t have any more money to spend on legal fees. He was much more emotionally labile, in terms of sensitivity to things, than most scientists. . . . He was very thin-skinned.”
Secondly, there’s the FBI. Reviewing the investigation of the anthrax attacks until 2006 is a study in incompetence by the FBI and the Army. Is it possible they deliberately blew the investigation in order to keep the plot from being exposed? Conspiracists will make that argument. I reject it because all too often, human error and coincidence is the much simpler and therefore more realistic explanation. It may very well be that the Army didn’t want to know if anyone from their lab was involved – a plausible explanation when considering the bureaucratic mindset at work in the lab’s own investigation of Ivins for an incident regarding a possible anthrax “spill” that the suspect never reported to his superiors. Covering up lax safety at the lab by not disciplining Ivins is perfectly in keeping with the way some in the Army bureacracy might operate. If that reflects badly on the Army, I’m sorry but we have seen similar cover ups over the years.
The FBI, however, knew of Ivins activities in cleaning anthrax from lab areas at Fort Detrick and still never made him a focus of the investigation. It wasn’t until FBI chief Mueller kicked out the agents heading the inquiry in 2006 and replaced them that movement towards Ivins began.
Why did the FBI concentrate their investigation instead on Stephen Hatfill, recipient of more than $5 million in a settlement agreed to just a few months ago and another employee at the lab? While demonstrating a breathtaking incompetence,this fact alone absolves the government of any conspiracy in my mind for the simple fact it would be stupid to make someone from the same lab as Ivins a suspect if there was a plot afoot. There are other labs they could have grabbed a patsy from while deflecting attention from Ivins. Therefore, we can almost certainly conclude that the FBI would not be part of any plot.
This is not to say that a thorough investigation shouldn’t immediately be undertaken by either a bi-partisan Congressional or independent panel that would examine all aspects of the case - including possible conspiracies. This matter went unresolved for entirely too long and whether it was incompetence or just bad luck, answers must be found regarding the Army and the FBI’s investigation of both Hatfill – whose case is strange indeed – and Ivins.
This case is far from closed. But I would urge everyone to wait upon the facts before connecting any dots – even if those dots are tempting one to posit conspiracies about the matter. Because at bottom, in order to believe in a government conspiracy to ratchet up fear following 9/11, one must suppose something so monstrous at the core of our government that if proven correct, will bring the United States to ruin.
This blog post originally appears in The American Thinker.
9:58 am
I’ll bet that he was an expert marksman as a child, and probably lived in the Dallas/Ft.Worth area. His depression resulted from years of guilt over his participation in another great conspiracy.
10:11 am
There are certainly troubling aspects to the idea that the anthrax attacks were planned and carried out by an employee who works in a government lab.
Given what we have been told about the anthrax in question, isn’t it nearly certain that a government lab employee was involved somehow?
And there’s a third troubling aspect to the anthrax story that few people are talking about – ABC News’ reporting that “bentonite” was present in the anthrax, because of the connection of bentonite to Iraq. In truth, there was no bentonite present, and the reports to the contrary were used to construct a plausible causus belli for the administration’s crusade. Who planted the bentonite story?
Ah! Glenn Greenwald’s straw man. The idea that the bentonite story helped gin up support for the Iraq war is silly. 95% of Americans never heard it and if they did would not have made a difference in whether they supported the invasion or not – something only around 50% of the country was for (After we went in, those numbers skyrocketed but in Feb, 2002 support for toppling Saddam was I believe at 54%.)
And as we’ve seen, ABC’s sources on terrorism stories have been horrible.
I would believe Porky Pig before I put any stock whatsoever in anything Glenn Greenwald writes.
ed.
10:20 am
OK, Folks, let’s move along. Nothing more to see here. The perp suicided himself. Case closed. We’re the FBI and we always tell the truth. Honest injun.
11:05 am
The forensic science evidence behind the anthrax attacks is highly controversial and needs to be properly debated by scientists qualified not only in microbiology but also the physics and chemistry of aerosol powders.
FBI scientist Douglas Beecher published a highly controversial paper in August 2006 – claiming, without data, that the spores contained no additives. This is the opposite of what was reported by US Army labs.
Details are given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
The August 2006 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology contained an article written by Dr. Douglas Beecher of the FBI labs in Quantico, VA.[22] The article, titled “Forensic Application of Microbiological Culture Analysis to Identify Mail Intentionally Contaminated with Bacillus anthracis spores ,” states “Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents.” The article also specifically criticizes “a widely circulated misconception” “that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production.” The harm done by such things is described this way: “This idea is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone. The persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations.” However, after this article had appeared the editor of Applied and Environmental Microbiology, L. Nicholas Ornston, stated that he was uncomfortable with Beecher’s statement in the article since it had no evidence to back it up and contained no citation.[23]
In August 2007 Dr. Kay Mereish, UN Chief, Biological Planning and Operations, published a letter in Applied and Environmental Microbiology titled “Unsupported Conclusions on the Bacillus anthracis Spores”.[25] This letter, published in the same journal as FBI scientist Douglas Beecher (see paragraph above), points out that the statements made by Dr. Beecher in his article on the lack of additives were not backed up with any data. She suggested that Dr. Beecher publish a paper with analytical data showing the absence of silica or other additives. Such data would include SEM images of the pure spores as well as EDX spectra and EDX images showing the absence of any foreign additives such as silica or the elements silicon and oxygen. Dr. Mereish referenced a 2006 CBRN, Counter-Proliferation and Response meeting in Paris where a presenter announced that an additive was present in the attack anthrax that affected the spore’s electrical charges.
Thanks for that info. As I said, a very strange case.
ed.
11:27 am
...one must suppose something so monstrous at the core of our government that if proven correct, will bring the United States to ruin
‘Tis what the BDSers have been claiming all along. Cheney et. al. is the monster at the core of our government. And they’re ruining the United States. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Correct. But it doesn’t have to be a conspiracy in the exec branch.
ed.
12:11 pm
“I would believe Porky Pig before I put any stock whatsoever in anything Glenn Greenwald writes.”
Right. Why believe a constitutional scholar, lawyer, best selling author, and first amendment advocate. I’m sure he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Oy – he is so full of hot air – debunked a dozen times over by myself and most of the conservative blogosphere – he has no credibility out side of an extremely small group of syncophantic nincompoops. He has been proven wrong on so many issues it is impossible to count – factually wrong and wrong headed analysis.
Find another hero to worship.
ed.
12:29 pm
[...] becomes available, I would hold to the facts and not speculate too forcefully ? yet." Right Wing Nut House ? ANTHRAX SUICIDE CASE RAISES TROUBLING QUESTIONS More Pre-911 Iraq War Planner activities? Scared most Americans! No wonder the American gave up [...]
1:07 pm
My guess, a small drug company called BioPort that produced an anthrax vaccine had lobbyists pushing legisaltion pending before the US gov. to buy a stockpile of the vaccine before the attack. After the attacks the bill passed. So, Ivins gave the anthrax to the drug co. BioPort (ceo is El Hibri from Lebanon, but born in Germany) who then mailed it. simple. (becuase politician recieved money from Bioport, no real investigation can proceed.)
That’s an angle I hadn’t considered. But again, you are positing very evil actions to individuals you don’t know.
ed.
1:57 pm
I don’t worship Glenn Greenwald, nor do I consider him a hero. However, he does have impressive credentials. I have read some of his work, and greatly appreciated his writings recently about FISA.
If he is factually wrong on issues, then that is a definite problem. I’m not sure what “wrong headed” actually means though. I suppose that it is only natural for you to loath him though, considering your beliefs.
Any linkage to him being factually wrong would be greatly appreciated.
Also, I believe that the anthrax guy killed himself about as much as I believe that the Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so called D.C. Madam, killed herself. Piss off the wrong people, and you will either die, or wish you were dead.
3:39 pm
So, just to be clear, you are asserting that the Anthrax attacks were not used to support the case for war against Iraq by administration officials?
Against Saddam? A peripheal issue that the American people simply were not aware of. I have no doubt someone mentioned it at one point or another. Powell didn’t mention it in his UN speech did he? Don’t think he did.
I can tell you this. I remember ABC’s reporting on the issue of the additive but do not recall an effort by the Administration to incorporate it in their justification for attacking Iraq. No doubt you have some “aha” link but if you are going to try and convince anyone that the American people supported going to war against Saddam because of the anthrax attack, that would be wrong.
ed.
4:51 pm
One of the plausible theories at the time (and still plausible IMO) was that the perp(s) was a government lab worker so concerned that insufficient attention was being paid to the threat of bio-terrorism that they were willing to kill a few people to make the case.
It’s a perversely utilitarian sort of argument, a sort of personal version of false flag operations real and unrealized and rumored, like “Operation Northwoods” against Cuba (unrealized), Gulf of Tonkin (real?), Hersh’s reported recent discussions in the office of the VP about anti-Iran false-flag ops (probably real), and a host of conspiracy theories.
5:06 pm
“if you are going to try and convince anyone that the American people supported going to war against Saddam because of the anthrax attack, that would be wrong.”
Perhaps, but it certainly helped to change 911 from an attack to a series of attacks in the public mind, and there were certainly incorrect attempts to te Saddam to the attacks.
You’re acting as if the campaign to build public support for the war in Iraq was a one-shot affair, when you know full well that it was a cumulative attempt to change people’s reactions on a gut level rather than an intellectual one.
Normally, I’d say that the levels of general incompetence in the attempt preclude it from being a conspiracy, but with the lot in charge at the moment, that sounds like a poor defense.
9:46 am
After 9/11 I was completely confused by the sudden cries of “Anthrax! Oh my God, they’re going to use anthrax on us!” Over and over, on every channel, and I wondered where the heck this was coming from. Why should we be afraid of anthrax specifically? What evidence did we have that this was a possibility? I derided them about this until, for heaven’s sake, anthrax actually showed up. My opinion was always that they screamed until somebody giggled insanely and gave them what they wanted. I guess the truth is that it takes longer than a few months to come up with weaponized anthrax, but I still think there is something really wrong with the way this played out.
1:22 pm
“Is it possible they deliberately blew the investigation in order to keep the plot from being exposed? Conspiracists will make that argument. I reject it because all too often, human error and coincidence is the much simpler and therefore more realistic explanation.”
Apply Occam’s Razor to this. The simplest explanation will be the right one.
“It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.” – H.L.Mencken
6:27 pm
I still need to hear the claimed motive, the clear opportunity is one thing but lets see how much more info released. Any ideas on why the letters weren’t sent to obscure tucked away addresses in the US but instead were so public.? I mean I have to say it was alot less scary once it looked like the government and certain officials were the targets and not John Q. Public.
6:44 am
Let’s frame this a little bit differently shall we? How about the government dragged their feet to eliminate any inside leads right away to get the full effect of “Death to America”, “Death to Israel”, “Praise Allah” to help build one more link to Saddam. Doesn’t sound so good to announce that right after the 911 attacks that some Right wing Christian fundamentalist that worked at Ft. Glow in the Dark tried to kill two leading Democratic Senators and blame it on the Muslims does it? I happen to be one of those nincompoops who respects Glenn and I think Brian Ross’ 4 sources Ain’t even close to straw. Please if you could, list any thing of factual error that Glenn has posted. Just one , please.
8:38 am
Sounds like this guy was not playing with a full deck, making death thrests and all, we will probably never know who did this.
8:43 pm
IMO, this is another prime example of conspiracy! Our government calls us “sheeple” and is it any wonder? From Ken Lay to the DC Madame. Not even John Gotti would have killed himself, and is very unlikely these people did either. Look into how many people ended up dead during the Clinton administration as just an example.
The NWO is already a reality, it’s the end of the world as we know it folks! Stock up on weapons and booze, soon cash and gold will be worthless, then sit baa-aaa-aaack and watch events unfold.
3:12 am
your source is from a baltimore paper written by an la times writer. this source isn’t even posted on the la times web site. there are no sources in the original story. where are your sources for your claims. you are using a source with none itself. your rational is flawed. where did information come from in the original story. your logic is so flawed,
“Why did the FBI concentrate their investigation instead on Stephen Hatfill, recipient of more than $5 million in a settlement agreed to just a few months ago and another employee at the lab? While demonstrating a breathtaking incompetence,this fact alone absolves the government of any conspiracy in my mind for the simple fact it would be stupid to make someone from the same lab as Ivins a suspect if there was a plot afoot. There are other labs they could have grabbed a patsy from while deflecting attention from Ivins. Therefore, we can almost certainly conclude that the FBI would not be part of any plot.”
I mean what?! Where are the credible sources for your post and the writer whose story you used without citing?