mogur

In a New York Times article, Anthrax Case Had Costs for Suspects-
The above link also describes the downfall of Perry Mikesell, an anthrax specialist who had worked in the 1980s and 1990s with Dr. Ivins at Fort Detrick. He then joined Battelle in Ohio that was deeply involved in secret federal research on biological weapons. In 2002, Mikesell came under F.B.I. scrutiny and he began drinking heavily, a fifth of hard liquor a day toward the end. “It was a shock that all of a sudden he’s a raging alcoholic,” recalled a relative. By late October 2002, Mikesell, 54, was dead. Two weeks before Ivins killed himself he told an Army colleague that his experience of F.B.I. pressure was similar to what Mikesell went through. “Perry drank himself to death,” the colleague recalled Dr. Ivins as saying.

Despite the Washington Post reporting in late December, 2001 that the FBI was pursuing the possibility that financial gain was the motive behind the anthrax mailings, and that Battelle and Dugway were especially indicated, the Columbus Dispatch reported that FBI Director Mueller had assured Ohio Senator DeWine that the bureau was not investigating, nor intending to investigate, anyone with, or formerly with, Battelle. Now that Ivins is dead, will the FBI stop investigating anyone with, or formerly with, Ft. Detrick? Oh, that’s right, no need to now that they drank the right man to death. (Sorry about the sour grapes. I just got a little carried away there; I may need a drink to sober up.)

Aggressive FBI tactics are probably not without support from some of us who would trade a little liberty for security, since most of us are neither a minority, nor ‘odd ducks’, and therefore less likely to become a victim. But if we continue to allow politics to influence justice, won’t we ALL be afraid when their party is in power and only feel secure when our party in power? And won’t that further divide us and increase the fear?

Some of the minority and odd ducks who fell victim to this anthrax investigation are-

Thomas Butler

Steven Kurtz

Kenneth Berry

Ayazuddin Sheerazi

Ayaad Assaad


On August 10, 2008, the New York Times reported-

kathaksung

Congress Asks: Who Misled the Anthrax Investigation by Pointing at Iraq?

Friday 12 September 2008
by: Bill Simpich, t r u t h o u t | Report

Following five anthrax-related deaths in 2001, a bioterrorism team held a news conference at the Capitol to demonstrate anthrax cleanup procedures. (Photo: Kenneth Lambert / AP)

On September 16, the House Judiciary Committee will hold oversight hearings to review the FBI's role in investigating the 2001 anthrax attacks <http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002944683>, followed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on the 17th. (Glenn Greenwald, August 20 interview with Charles Grassley) <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/08/20/grassley/>.
Chairmen Senator Patrick Leahy and Congressman John Conyers have asked FBI Director Robert Mueller to attend. Conyers has specifically asked Mueller to address whether White House officials initially pressed the FBI to show the attacks were linked to Iraq, why Steven Hatfill was a key suspect in the investigation and why Bruce Ivins kept his security clearance for so many years.

If these committees hope to uncover the truth, they have to order several journalists and scientists to provide the basis for their claims that Iraq was a prime suspect in these attacks. No shield law protects journalists or their sources who plant phony evidence in a terror investigation.

Journalist Gary Matsumoto, other journalists and their sources have repeatedly provided false information about the contents of the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks. These sources claimed the anthrax was milled, that it was coated and that it had additives. Any of these telltale factors would be critical evidence that would indicate the need of several specialists working as a team - hence, "state sponsorship" and possible Iraqi involvement. Every one of these claims was wrong, but played a key role in leading the US into war. Later, these same claims were used to justify the war.

The FBI resisted the pressure to focus on Iraq - it had sole custody of the evidence and quickly knew that these sources had it wrong. After genetic analysis showed the anthrax was derived from the Ames strain used in the US military biodefense program, the FBI released a profile <http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc2.html> on November 9, 2001, indicating a domestic terrorist was responsible. The early finding of one trillion spores per gram was compelling proof that the anthrax came from the US program - no other country can attain anything near that level of purity. (William Broad, New York Times, Terror Anthrax Linked to Type Made By U.S., 12/13/01, New York Times articles about anthrax <http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/nyt.html>.)

In November 2002, during the build-up to war with Iraq, FBI counterterrorism chief Tom Carey told ABC <http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s726834.htm> "the information that came out there that led weapons inspectors and others to suspect the Iraq connection was wrong information." Just three weeks ago, the FBI confirmed their anthrax findings in a transcribed scientific briefing <http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dc3wqmd7_33d2tjs5ct>.

Despite the FBI's knowledge of this misinformation, it appears that professor Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's sources succeeded in misleading the FBI into a four-year wild goose chase - looking at virologist Stephen Hatfill - until a new team of agents was appointed to re-examine the evidence in 2006.

Did the FBI Investigate Those Who Were Misleading the Investigation?

Did the FBI try to determine who planted phony evidence designed to finger Iraq as the state sponsor of the anthrax attacks? From 2001 to the present, this investigation has been surrounded with misleading claims about the nature of the anthrax. The initial goal was to push the US into a war with Iraq. Then, the goal became to justify the US occupation.

The "Iraq-Did-It" Lobby of Matsumoto, Ross, Jacobsen and Spertzel Beat the Drums of War
During the height of the terror surrounding the attacks, Gary Matsumoto (with the aid of Brian Ross of ABC News and others) claimed the anthrax contained bentonite, an aluminum-based clay that is a trademark of the Iraqi anthrax weapons arsenal.

Although the bentonite story quickly collapsed, Matsumoto has been joined over the years by certain ideologically driven right-wing scientists who support the "Iraq-Did-It" theory. His primary sources, who are not anonymous, are Stuart Jacobsen, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) research chemist and Free Republic blogger (see his "Technical Intelligence" article on the anthrax attacks <http://newsdetails.blogspot.com/2007/05/technical-intelligence-in-retrospect.html>), and Richard Spertzel, an ex-Iraq WMD inspector, who is a virulent right-winger and a favorite source of The Wall Street Journal. (See Spertzel's August 5 Wall Street Journal editorial, which states, "Ivins is innocent - look at state sponsored terrorism."). Spertzel's editorial didn't include any hint of his comment in a letter <http://www.lauriemylroie.com/files/Spertzel_on_Shoham_Jacobsen2.htm> he wrote last year: "I have believed all along that Iraqi intelligence had their dirty hands on this event." Spertzel was the weapons inspector, who FBI counterterrorism chief Tom Carey said was working with "misinformation."

Matsumoto, Jacobsen and Spertzel have been the public face of the stories over the years, claiming that 1) the anthrax was finely milled, 2) that it had a coating, with 3) an additive - silica, polyglass, or (in Matsumoto's case) bentonite. If any of these three claims were true, it would point to a state sponsor such as Iraq. The committee needs to call these men as witnesses and ask, "Are you the source of these lies, or who is feeding you these lies?"

The FBI had sole custody of all the evidence, and has known the nature of the anthrax all along: It was not milled. It had no coating. It contained no additive - no silica, polyglass or bentonite. These factors are why the key suspects were those with access to the anthrax at Fort Detrick, rather than Iraq. This case took seven years to reach this point because of these lies.

The Initial Suspect, Steven Hatfill, Was Singled Out by the FBI Precisely Because of His Role in the "Iraq-Did-It" Lobby
......

t r u t h o u t | Congress Asks: Who Misled the Anthrax Investigation by Pointing at Iraq?

mogur

Ft. Detrick has anthrax cultured in a liquid medium. Dugway and Batelle have the genetically identical bacteria in powder form. While it is very important to find out exactly who was behind the 'state sponsored' myth that helped drag us into the Iraq quagmire, I believe it is even more important to understand if the government, a corporation, or a lone nut actually committed this terrorism.

creativedreams

Wow!!!... I had recently pondered this thought and now I find a post on it while I'm doing some browsing!!!