Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FBI closes investigation into 2001 anthrax attacks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-19-10 06:34 PM
Original message
FBI closes investigation into 2001 anthrax attacks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902369.html

According to the FBI Bruce Ivins was the perpetrator. The Post has a link to the report pdf.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-20-10 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. I read the report
Edited on Sat Feb-20-10 02:10 PM by spooked911
It's an interesting read. Some of it seems like bullshit, like the DNA code he supposedly put in the letter writing. The letters in the notes, which are supposed to stand for DNA bases, just are not bolded in the notes the way the FBI claims.

Also, people who work in research labs-- especially biolabs-- often work odd hours. There is nothing particularly suspicious about that.

But no doubt, Ivins was a disturbed guy, with some odd behaviors. Certainly, the FBI hounding him didn't help. I actually suspect that he was involved in the anthrax attacks at some level-- he had grown the type of anthrax used and did act suspiciously, if we are to believe the FBI. But the simple truth is that there is no direct evidence connecting him to the attacks, and even worse, he simply could not have produced the final weaponized product-- the silicon percentage was too high.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011421223515284.html

Other problems with Ivins as the Lone Sporeman, are collected here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/08/lone-sporeman-part-3.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. funny, how the OCTrs here ignore that anthrax was clearly an inside job, related to 9/11
just one more thing conveniently ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-21-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. No spooked
It is not funny. It is sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-22-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. that's true
yet they declare over and over there are no smoking guns...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-25-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. why do the people here who ridicule 9/11 conspiracies ignore this story?
The anthrax attacks were an obvious inside job.

Is it that if you admit this, than you might have to actually admit that 9/11 is an inside job too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-26-10 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. any chance I could get an official statement from the OCTists on this?
do you believe Ivins is the guy or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-26-10 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Maybe they have me on "ignore" and are not seeing the thread? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-27-10 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Good thought, but I doubt it
and I certainly doubt they all have you on ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-26-10 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Yes --
though IMO Ivins had nothing to do with this --

Rumsfeld had -- if I recall correctly -- ordered a new strain of Anthrax which could not

be countered by a vaccine. I'd start with Rumsfeld.

And, of course, White House was taking the drug -- what was it Cipro something? ...

weeks before the attack?

I'd say this was all a glint in their eyes long, long before we understood what was

descending upon us in 9/11/MIHOP -- and as soon as W entered the White House he was

arranging for the wiretapping. That was 6 months before 9/11.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. What can I say?
I find Greta Garbo VERY sexy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
angelicwoman Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-25-10 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. They bungled this investigation
Their announcements have had inconsistencies from the get go. This guy did. No, this other guy did it., etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. So who here really thinks Ivins was the guy?
Anyone want to chime in for the FBI?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-28-10 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
12. Good piece here on why Ivins is not the guy
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/02/25/federal-bureau-of-invention-microbiologi

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD

The FBI's report, documents and accompanying information (only pertaining to Ivins, not to the rest of the investigation) were released on Friday afternoon. which means the FBI anticipated doubt and ridicule. The National Academies of Science (NAS) is several months away from issuing its $879,550 report on the microbial forensics, suggesting a) asking NAS to investigate the FBI's science was just a charade to placate Congress, and/or b) NAS' investigation might be uncovering things the FBI would prefer to bury, so FBI decided to preempt the NAS panel's report.

Here are today's reports from the Justice Department, AP, Washington Post and NY Times. The WaPo article ends,

The FBI's handling of the investigation has been criticized by Ivins's colleagues and by independent analysts who have pointed out multiple gaps, including a lack of hair, fiber other physical evidence directly linking Ivins to the anthrax letters. But despite long delays and false leads, Justice officials Friday expressed satisfaction with the outcome.

The evidence "established that Dr. Ivins, alone, mailed the anthrax letters," the Justice summary stated.

Actually, the 96 page FBI report is predicated on the assumption that the anthrax letters attack was carried out by a "lone nut." The FBI report fails to entertain the possibility that the letters attack could have involved more than one actor. The FBI admits that about 400 people may have had access to Ivins' RMR-1029 anthrax preparation, but asserts all were "ruled out" as lone perpetrators. FBI never tried to rule any out as part of a conspiracy, however.

That is only the first of many holes in FBI's case. Here is a sampling of some more.

1. The report assumes Ivins manufactured, purified and dried the spore prep in the anthrax hot room at US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). His colleagues say the equipment available was insufficient to do so on the scale required.

2. But even more important, the letter spores contained a Bacillus subtilis contaminant, and silicon to enhance dispersal. FBI has never found the Bacillus subtilis strain at USAMRIID, and it has never acknowledged finding silicon there, either. If the letters anthrax was made at USAMRIID, at least small amounts of both would be there.

3. Drs. Perry Mikesell, Ayaad Assaad and Stephen Hatfill were 3 earlier suspects. All had circumstantial evidence linking them to the case. In Hatfill's case, especially, are hints he could have been "set up." Greendale, the return address on the letters, was a suburb of Harare, Zimbabwe where Hatfill attended medical school. Hatfill wrote an unpublished book about a biowarfare attack that bears some resemblance to the anthrax case. So the fact that abundant circumstantial evidence links Ivins to the case might be a reflection that he too was "set up" as a potential suspect, before the letters were sent.

4. FBI fails to provide any discussion of why no autopsy was performed, nor why, with Ivins under 24/7 surveillance from the house next door, with even his garbage being combed through, the FBI failed to notice that he overdosed and went into a coma. Nor is there any discussion of why the FBI didn't immediately identify tylenol as the overdose substance, and notify the hospital, so that a well-known antidote for tylenol toxicity could be given (N-acetyl cysteine, or alternatively glutathione). These omissions support the suggestion that Ivins' suicide was a convenience for the FBI. It enabled them to conclude the anthrax case, in the absence of evidence that would satisfy the courts.

5. The FBI's alleged motive is bogus. In 2001, Bioport's anthrax vaccine could not be (legally) relicensed due to potency failures, and its impending demise provided room for Ivins' newer anthrax vaccines to fill the gap. Ivins had nothing to do with developing Bioport's vaccine, although in addition to his duties working on newer vaccines, he was charged with assisting Bioport to get through licensure.

6. FBI's report claims, "Those who worked for him knew that Nass was one of those topics to avoid discussing around Dr. Ivins" (page 41). The truth is we had friendly meetings at the Annapolis, Maryland international anthrax conference in June 2001, and several phone conversations after that. Bruce occasionally assisted me in my study of the safety and efficacy of Bioport's licensed anthrax vaccine, giving me advice and papers he and others had written. I wonder if I was mentioned negatively to discourage Ivins' other friends and associates from communicating with me, since they have been prohibited from speaking freely? Clever.

7. The FBI's Summary states that "only a limited number of individuals ever had access to this specific spore preparation" and that the flask was under Ivins' sole and exclusive control. Yet the body of the report acknowledges hundreds of people who had access to the spores, and questions remain about the location of the spore prep during the period in question. FBI wordsmiths around this, claiming that no one at USAMRIID "legitimately" used spores from RMR1029 without the "authorization and knowledge" of Bruce Ivins. Of course, stealing spores to terrorize and kill is not a legitimate activity.

8. FBI says that only a small number of labs had Ames anthrax, including only 3 foreign labs. Yet a quick Pub Med search of papers published between 1999 and 2004 revealed Ames anthrax was studied in at least Italy, France, the UK, Israel and South Korea as well as the US. By failing to identify all labs with access to Ames, the FBI managed to exclude potential domestic and foreign perpetrators.

9. FBI claims that "drying anthrax is expressly forbidden by various treaties," therefore it would have to be performed clandestinely. Actually, the US government sponsored several programs that dried anthrax spores. Drying spores is not explicitly prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention, though many would like it to be.

10. The FBI report claims the anthrax letters envelopes were sold in Frederick, Md. Later it admits that millions of indistinguishable envelopes were made, with sales in Maryland and Virginia.

11. FBI emphasizes Ivins' access to a photocopy machine, but fails to mention it was not the machine from which the notes that accompanied the spores were printed.

12. FBI claims Ivins was able to make a spore prep of equivalent purity as the letter spores. However, Ivins had clumping in his spores, while the spores in the Daschle/Leahy letters had no clumps. Whether Ivins could make a pure dried prep is unknown, but there is no evidence he had ever done so.

13. FBI asserts that Bioport and USAMRIID were nearly out of anthrax vaccine, to the point researchers might not have enough to vaccinate themselves. FBI further asserts this would end all anthrax research, derailing Ivins' career. In fact, USAMRIID has developed many dozens of vaccines (including those for anthrax) that were never licensed, but have been used by researchers to vaccinate themselves. There would be no vaccine shortage for researchers.

14. Ivins certainly had mental problems. But that does not explain why the FBI accompanied Ivins' therapist, Ms. Duley (herself under charges for multiple DUIs) and assisted her to apply for a peace order against him. Nor does it explain why Duley then went into hiding, never to be heard from again.

15. FBI obtained a voluntary collection of anthrax samples. Is that the way to conduct a multiple murder investigation: ask the scientists to supply you with the evidence to convict them? There is no report that spores were seized from anyone but Ivins, about 6 years after the attacks. This is a huge hole in the FBI's "scientific" methodology.

16. FBI claims it investigated Bioport and others who had a financial motive for the letters attack, and ruled them out. However, FBI provides not a shred of evidence from such an investigation.

FBI gave this report its best shot. The report sounds good. It includes some new evidence. It certainly makes Ivins out to be a crazed, scary and pathetic figure. If you haven't followed this story intently, you may be convinced of his guilt.

On the other hand, there are reasons why a conspiracy makes better sense. If the FBI really had the goods, they would not be overreaching to pin the crime on a lone nut.

JFK, RFK, George Wallace, Martin Luther King, all felled by lone nuts. Even Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin was a lone nut. Now Bruce Ivins. The American public is supposed to believe that all these crimes required no assistance and no funds.

Does the FBI stand for the Federal Bureau of Invention?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-10 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yeah, I thought that this was a good piece too--
pretty convincing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. *crickets*
funny, that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. why is there no rush to denounce the idea that the anthrax attacks were an inside job?
Do we have consensus here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. so we're in agreement?
anthrax attacks were a total inside job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Yay!
We're in agreement!

The anthrax attacks were a blatant inside job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. So the next obvious question is---
since the anthrax attacks were an inside job, isn't it logical that 9/11 was too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Awesome-- so everyone now agrees that 9/11 was a huge inside job too?
So the next question is-- how was it done, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Let me just repeat that, just to make sure we're all on the same page--
we all agree 9/11 was an inside job, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. again-- we all agree 9/11 was an inside job, right?
Right?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Pretty amusing how the OCTists are happy to ignore this aspect of 9/11
when it was clearly a false flag inside job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Drops_not_Dope Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
15. Funny, something I never noticed before
on the note that says death to america,
death to israel, the loop on the R in israel
looks like it's a heart shape.

what do you think? and what do you surmise
this could mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. I don't see that myself
sorry
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
23. Yeah, well
Asked a DA and about this Anthrax situation.

Even though they agreed that bushco lied about Iraq, and lied about torture, and lied about outing a CIA agent, and that their involvement in 9/11 posed some serious questions, they were willing to give bushco a pass on Anthrax.

Dumbasses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-10 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. weird.
definitely some deep shit happened with the anthrax attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. yeah... everyone loves the 10 steps, so, lets
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 10:32 AM by BeFree
1. Do not overstate the power of your argument.

Replying would undercut their argument, whatever it is?

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.

See #1

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases.

Biases. To acknowledge the failure of bushco would be problematic for the OCTers.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.

Never gonna happen. Anthrax discussions weakens the OCT.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold.

This seems like the real reason they totally ignore Anthrax.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards.

It is a double standard to ignore this issue.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.
Just watch. If they do reply it will be to attack me, or you.


8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it.

Well, that's hardly possible for the OCTers, eh? How could they possibly misrepresent Anthrax, and so they stay far, far away?

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.

Again, hardly possible in this environment. Critical thinking about Anthrax would almost require a straight up condemnation of bushco and lead back to why did bushco allow this to happen and just what was the effect on any early investigation of 9/11?

In short, Anthrax stopped cold any effective early investigation of 9/11.


10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good.

Where did they go? Why is there a near total lack of recognition of this issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I recommend 12 steps for you.
Encouraging someone's clinical delusions because you're addicted to the jollies is pathological.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. whose clinical delusions are you referring to?
and why have you avoided the real evidence in this thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. His own?
Methinks he is just projecting.

They do get their jollies on moronic name calling.

Suffice to say they do appear happier when they spew their way out of serious discussions.

It's gotta be tough being an OCTer these days.
Might we be more liberal and show them a bit of pity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Special place in Hell, BeFree. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. See you there, bubba.
Hopefully bushco will be filling up all the worst areas so we won't have too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Thats all ya got?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. "moronic name-calling"
The funny thing about you, BeFree, is you just make shit like this up, then retreat into your stupid "who, me?" mode when you get called on it. Please point to examples of this "moronic name-calling", dude. Take your time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. You're intentionally trying to destroy a well-meaning forum!
Day in and day out you repeat your snide comments on damn near every thread in the September 11th forum.
You belittle, divert and ridicule merely 'for fun'.

The time you spend here is simply for your own selfish gratification; and a majority of the time diverts from the subject matter.
This thread alone proves it and is the MAIN reason I no longer contribute to DU and havent since you`ve been posting.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I don't agree with this at all
SDuderstadt has contributed more to my substantive knowledge of 9/11 than you have. To say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #39
49. Yes he has contributed
But when you weigh the positives against the negatives, the negatives tip the scales. It is ugly and an embarrassment to progressives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. once again, we disagree n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Back in your "you can't disagree with the 'truth movement' on the facts and...
still be a progressive" spiel, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. No
It is your style that is embarrassing. Your attempts at using moronic name calling to win is what is embarrassing to progressives.

Disagreement on the issues is fine. And you have brought forward some good points, but I think you have destroyed most of the good with your awful ugliness.

YMMV
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. "moronic name calling "
Edited on Thu Mar-18-10 04:50 PM by SDuderstadt
Again with the false accusations, dude. I haven't called you or anyone else here a single name and you know it.

Do you remotely understand that referring to an argument as "stupid" or an unsubstantiated claim as "goofy" is not name-calling, dude? Smart people can say stupid things and otherwise rational people embrace goofy claims everyday. If referring to an argument as "stupid" or a claim as "goofy" is "name-calling", what is referring to "moronic name-calling"? Tu quo, dude? If you have even one example of me calling anyone a name, please provide it. Take your time, dude.

BTW, what does "YMMV" stand for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. "Dude", over and over and over again.
That is moronic.

Otherwise, I am not getting on the un-merry-go-round.

Suffice to say, that I may post a link to this as a reminder when you go moronic again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. I see you cannot point to a single name I have called you or anyone else, dude....
Edited on Thu Mar-18-10 05:04 PM by SDuderstadt
yet, you persist with the false accusations and, even worse, using your apparent definition of "name-calling", by referring to "when you go moronic", you just called me a "name". Do you honestly claim that referring to someone as "dude" is "name-calling"? So, if I see my nephew and ask, "How's it going, dude?", I just called him a name? See how that works, dude?

Simple challennge. Point to ANYWHERE where I have called you or anyone else a name, dude. When you can't, will you pledge to quit poisoning the debate with false accusations????
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Great...
so, in my own little way, I have contributed to the betterment of the forum by ensuring your non-contribution. Talk about an unintended benefit.

Your post is unintentionally ironic in ways you can only imagine, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. anything on the OP ? lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Nope...
how about you, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. talk about a "who me?" response.
you name-call constantly (goofy-this, goofy-that, embarrassment-this, embarrassment-that, etc) and you almost never have anything substantive to add.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Dude....
Did you notice that I refer to a theory as "goofy", not to a person? Can you tell me how that is name-calling?

And, it's really stupid to claim I never have anything substantive to add. You just don'tlike being shown to be wrong, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. oh yes, you are very careful in your name-calling
but it is still name-calling.

As far as being shown I am wrong-- when exactly did you do that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Dude....
how is describing a theory "name-calling"? Do you even know what name-calling is?

As far as being shown you're wrong, your goofy "no-planes" bullshit is so discredited that even your own "side" rejects you, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
48. hell no!
why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. "To acknowledge the failure of bushco would be problematic for the OCTers."
Now, let's see: which of your rules are you violating here? Numbers 7 and 8, for starters.

As far as I can tell, there is no DU rule against simply inventing the arguments of people you want to disagree with. It's a choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-16-10 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
43. Another False flag attack to solidify sending your children to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-18-10 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
51.  Obama blocking any new investigation of 2001 anthrax attacks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7947800&mesg_id=7947800


After the FBI closed its case in February, Rep Rush Holt (D-NJ) called for an investigation, and Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) cosponsored it, in the form of an amendment to an intelligence authorization bill that contained strong new provisions for Congressional oversight of the intelligence community. The bill passed the House on February 26, as did the amendment requesting the Director of National Intelligence to investigate the anthrax letters case.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2701

Holt then wrote to the chairs of four relevant House committees asking for
an additional Congressional investigation into the anthrax letters case and the FBI’s handling of it. (The letter is linked to my blog.) The committees were the Select Intelligence, Homeland Security, Government Reform and Judiciary Committees.

On Monday, March 15, Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, wrote to members of the Congressional intelligence committees
regarding the intelligence bill passed by the House. The administration, he said, wanted it changed considerably –i.e., emasculated. One of the changes asked for was stopping any more investigation of Amerithrax.

Because the anthrax letters were a direct attack on Congress and the media, and influenced public opinion vis-a-vis the US invasion of Iraq, a credible conclusion to this case is of the highest importance.

Or does Obama want another “Warren Commission” whitewash on his watch?


http://markcrispinmiller.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-10 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #51
57. thanks for adding that--- isn't that freaking disgusting?
so much for "change"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
58. Exonerated anthrax suspect: FBI harassed me

Posted by sabra
DU Thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4346463&mesg_id=4346463

Source: MSNBC

Steven Hatfill was investigated for years before being cleared; no apologies

The man falsely accused by the FBI of sending letters laced with deadly anthrax spores has received a big settlement from the government, but never an apology for destroying his life.

What’s more, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill told TODAY’s Matt Lauer during his first interview since the September 2001 attacks, neither the Justice Department nor the FBI has been held accountable for breaking the law and lying in their pursuit of him.

“I love my country,” Hatfill, 56, told Lauer. But, he added, “I learned a couple things. The government can do to you whatever they want. They can break the laws, federal laws, as they see fit … You can’t turn laws on and off as you deem fit. And the Privacy Act laws were put in place specifically to stop what happened to me. Whether we’re at war or have been attacked, the foundation of society is that you hold to the laws in place. I used to be somebody that trusted the government. Now I really don't trust anything.”

No apologies
“Did they ever apologize?” Lauer asked.

“No, they don’t do that. My father asked them, very early on in the investigation. He said, ‘When all this is over, and you find that my son had nothing to do with this, are you going to apologize?’ And Bob Roth says, ‘No, we don't do that,’ ” Hatfill said, referring to the FBI’s lead investigator in the case, Bob Roth.

...

He is angry that the government feels that it can tell people to abandon their friends.

“I don’t know of any law that permits the FBI to go by your closest friends and say, ‘You’re not to associate with Dr. Hatfill.’ What they’re trying to do is socially isolate you as part of the stress.”

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36565308/ns/today-today_people

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-10 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. I wonder how many here had concluded that Hatfill was guilty
and now conclude that Ivins was guilty. I wonder if Hatfill had succumbed to the pressure and offed himself if the investigation would have stopped there.

One of the great principles of this country was that you were innocent until proven guilty.

These days all it takes is one-sided accusations, seemingly circumstantial evidence, and a dead man who cannot defend himself.

Case closed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-10 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. So
It was mighty convenient to have it end that way.

Last I heard they figured it had to be a DoD shop where the anthrax was made, right?

But after all these years they never could prove exactly where it came from.

Remember when it happened how so many people were shock and awed?
It sure sent a scare through the public and diverted attention from the 9/11 happenings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-20-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Can you say "Patriot Act"
Edited on Thu May-20-10 11:38 PM by deconstruct911
I mean if it be coked-up Muslims or militia, clearly the only solution was to strip civil liberties. What else was a high character guy like Bush and his crew to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. Paul Bremer
was also on national television very shortly after 9 11, explaining the "terrorists" want to strip us of civil liberties and make us throw away the democratic way of life. He also assumed Iraq had a hand in 9 11. This was before the anthrax scare, and when the anthrax scare happened, not only was Powell quick to lay blame on Saddam, but in came the patriot act.

How did Paul Bremer know civil liberties would become an issue before the anthrax attack?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. The same way anyone else would, dude...
by connecting the dots. Duh.

Thanks for the update, Captain Obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. That's funny
He's not the type to connect many dots. I feel the world could be in a better place if he could though. Certainly would be in the interest of those who died on 9 11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. As much as I disdaim Paul Bremer...
he can connect more dots than you, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blavatsky3 Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
66. SO HOW MANY PEOPLE RELATED TO 9-11 ARE DEAD NOW ?
Notice that the list of people related to 9-11 is growing.

JFK Jnr 16th July 1999 would have won against Bush - 9-11 wopuld never have happened under JFK Jr's watch.
JFK Jr would have re-investigated the assassination of his father.

Obama quashes the Saudi case after Beverly Eckert started it and she dies in a plane crash on 12th Feb 2009 about 2 weeks into Obamas tenure.

Barry Jennings 19th August 2008

US Senator Paul Wellstone 25th October 2002 he would have stopped the war with IRAQ.

FBI agent John O'Neil died on 9-11

Special Agent Craig Miller dies in WTC-7 on 9-11

and the list goes on

www.911oz.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC