Comments on: ANTHRAX SUICIDE CASE RAISES TROUBLING QUESTIONS

By: Chris Cwenske@ku.edu

Chris Cwenske@ku.edu — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:12:57 +0000

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?

By: Rhonda Fleming

Rhonda Fleming — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:43:53 +0000

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.

By: Drewsmom

Drewsmom — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:38:11 +0000

Sounds like this guy was not playing with a full deck, making death thrests and all, we will probably never know who did this.

By: the Fly-Man

the Fly-Man — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:44:36 +0000

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.

By: Rick Skally

Rick Skally — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:27:01 +0000

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.

By: Robohobo

Robohobo — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:22:40 +0000

“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

By: Kathy

Kathy — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:46:14 +0000

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.

By: Drongo

Drongo — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:06:20 +0000

“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.

By: Bill Arnold

Bill Arnold — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:51:33 +0000

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.

By: curious

curious — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:39:14 +0000

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.