Comments for Bruce Ivins - Did the FBI Get the Right Guy?

Bruce Ivins - Did the FBI Get the Right Guy?

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:23:47 -0600

Yesterday Richard Spertzel, wrote in the WSJ - Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit, where states his claim that Mr. Ivins couldn’t possibly be the anthrax killer, or at least he could not have acted alone. Spertzel states in his case:In short, the potential lethality of anthrax in this case far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program. In meetings held on the cleanup of the anthrax spores in Washington, the product was described by an official at the Department of Homeland Security as "according to the Russian recipes" -- apparently referring...

Comment from BillT on 2008-08-09

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 07:40:11 -0600

Naked aggression is frowned upon.

Wait 'til you've been aggressed by WereKitty, Ymar.

I *guarantee* you won't be frowning...

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:43:47 -0600

I'm having a gout attack. Y'all may have heard. That means I have one very large, very painful nerve left.

Quit jumping on it.

Argghhh!

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:59:36 -0600

Sanger is a longtime Denizen who is well-respected 'round these parts but has sadly been absent for an extended period (until recently)

It took awhile to format my comment the way I wanted to, given the tools I was given. Now, stating that, to respond to what you said, Fbl:

Regardless of Sanger's position from the past, I don't know his past and perhaps he doesn't know mine here or elsewhere.

But as in all things, the aggressor has the responsibility of justifying their aggression. Naked aggression is frowned upon.

Since I did not aim my initial one liner (which, if you notice, wasn't loquacious to begin with) at Sanger, I can only respond to his actions and words.

I wouldn't think the two of you would disagree on much, and so I suspect you are "reading" his personality/attitude about as well as he is reading yours.

Some people just don't like each other, Fbl. I think you have to recognize that. And it doesn't really matter what their politics are. People who share politics don't necessarily also share compatible personalities.

I don't get along with egotists and arrogant know it alls. I get along more with classical liberals. "Classical liberal" may not be seen as a personality type, but it is, if you factor in a couple of things.

I knew I didn't know what his personality was to begin with, Fbl. I knew he had started an argument with me, specifically, however. As I said before, the responsibility is with the aggressor to justify him or herself.

My duty is just to gather info on what motivates them.

If you read Sanger's last post to me, Fbl, I do not believe you could claim that my suspicions of him were incorrect.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:40:01 -0600

nothing you've written in this thread has been well-formulated, either in structure or language, and some of it was just wrong.

You feel it is wrong, but you have no way to articulate why or even what is wrong. You claim I am wrong in my facts, yet you don't talk about facts. You talk about your feelings and your snark. Your snark is not your facts, at least, not exclusively your facts.

In light of your inability to compete, you resort to entertainment as if it means anything. But it does mean something, to you, at least. That's not enough.

You're not being snarky, come on, did you really think I'd buy that. You were being passive aggressive. You weren't kidding. Why try to convince yourself of it.

but it really doesn't show in what you've written.

Or at least that is what you believe and have insinuated. But nothing prevented you from clearly stating such things in the beginning. Nothing, that is, except yourself.

I promise I won't comment about your comments anymore....

The only reason why you didn't fall on that landmine is because you didn't clearly express what you were thinking.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/passivevoice.html

Read that and if you care to, come back and actually say what you mean, rather than what you thought you meant.

For my money, a person who makes (or more precisely, 'believes') sweeping statements like this is as likely as not a person who would act thusly. We hate most those things in others that we despise most in ourselves.

It's simple. Since you believe that it is I doing a couple of things, when you speak of "we hate most things", you are talking about yourself, not me. But you didn't mean to. You were just being passive.

I may not know what your game is, exactly, but even you cannot call that rather over-complicated sentence "well-formulated". You may not be partial to calling a spade a spade, but it doesn't mean I must be the same way.

And I really wasn't being nice because of John

You didn't step up to the plate, and if it wasn't because of John, then I must believe it was because of your own personality. As to whether that makes things worse or not, I suppose you will have to decide on that score.

( see John, I used a smiley... that makes it not mean, right?)

I am not you, I cannot read your mind, and I don't suppose I want to in the end.

Also, your knowedge of American history seems to be as weak as your understanding of our political system

That's fine for you to say when defending Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, but I don't see what my place in this affair is all about. They are not my patrons and nor is Robert Byrd, for that matter. I don't have a personal reason to continue on the attack, as you do.

Anyway, look. I was just having fun, but I hurt your feelings, and I really am sorry for that.

CBT'll take care of that for you, like any good subordinate will. You don't have to crawl on hands and knees when other inferiors can do the job just as well.

*******
As for CBT (you didn't believe I have forgotten you, have you),

I believe you need some help, and unfortunately, or rather fortunately, I cannot provide it to you. (But thanks for supplying me with some recon data, nonetheless)

I hope you know what projection is, at least.

******
When Sanger defends what he sees as American history and politics and CBT defends what he sees as the "right way of the universe", none of that actually means my feelings are involved in such affairs. It was never my emotions tweaking the chain and web of fate, after all.

But I am sure such superiors as Sanger and CBT won't be deceived by such ill constructed sentences or attempts to convince them that Calley was in Congress. CBT, I know, will not be dragged down to the level of such atrociously constructed sentences and maladroitly used language.

No, they are above such things. They are pure, and wise too one might say.

Comment from FbL on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:22:27 -0600

Typo above. First sentence should be: "...nor can I maintain the focus to untangle the mess of conversation..."

Which of course proves the truth of that statement, haha!

Comment from FbL on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:21:14 -0600

I don't time to read every word above, nor the focus to untangle the mess of conversation, but my general reaction is...

What the hell is going on here between you two (Sanger and Ymarsakar)??!!!

Ymarsakar, relatively-speaking you're pretty new, IIRC. Sanger is a longtime Denizen who is well-respected 'round these parts but has sadly been absent for an extended period (until recently). Yes, one of his pastimes is playing with language and poking people a little bit. But I fear you have taken him to be poking much harder than he intends.

Sanger, Ymarsakar tends to be loquacious, but usually has good things to say; he's a regular over at Cassandra's who has recently been joining in more over here. I wouldn't think the two of you would disagree on much, and so I suspect you are "reading" his personality/attitude about as well as he is reading yours.

Obviously you both have your backs up now and I have no idea how to make you stop. But please, do. I don't know where John is (actually, he's probably travelling today, IIRC), but he'd be smacking you both at this point. How about a little breather?--she asks timidly...

Comment from SangerM on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:24:30 -0600

Ymarsakar, I'm really sorry. Really, truly. I thought English was your native language and that you were just not well educated (or just young, maybe in your early 20s say), but this has started to feel like a Turing test with an TI-99, so please just accept my sincere regrets. It would be nice if we could talk/snark/ping one another on equal terms, but this is just not going to be possible, I think, given your difficulties with English, ok? I promise I won't comment about your comments anymore....

As for whether you respect me or care for my style, well, I wouldn't care even if you were in the room with me. And I really wasn't being nice because of John, but because I like having fun with words, and snarky commentary, etc. To be honest, and direct (because you asked so nicely), I was indeed being insulting (if snarkily so), but let's face it, nothing you've written in this thread has been well-formulated, either in structure or language, and some of it was just wrong. Yes, you may be smarter than me, or wittier, or more restrained, urbane, suave, debonair, etc., but it really doesn't show in what you've written. Also, your knowedge of American history seems to be as weak as your understanding of our political system--you might want to revisit the Vietnam War to get a better sense of who was killing whom. I think you were confusing Kerry and Calley, whose names do sound alike (especially with some foreign accents).

Anyway, look. I was just having fun, but I hurt your feelings, and I really am sorry for that.

I should have realized....

V/R
SangerM

Comment from Charlie Browns Teacher on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:21:38 -0600

When people try to be aggressive on the most innoculous points made available, when they exceed hypersensitivity and go into "I'm afraid, so I'm going to see if the other guy is afraid too", what do you actually think is going to happen?
Um, sound exactly like you on a daily basis, maybe? LOL. "I'm so cool, I decide what's superific, and it's always me. I'm always right, even if I only have a cursory understanding of a subject. Bow down, bitches.' LOL. Dude, you're hillarious. Now you're saying it's 'recon'? "Recon"? Gotta butch up the vocab, huh? Oh, man, you slay. LOL. Seriously? It's 'recon'? Reading one's own comments is actually sound advice, Mr. SuperMacho. LOL. Dude, I figured it out. You're a comedian, sort of a poor man's Jon Stewart or Lewis Black. I get the joke. You can stop now. LOL. Oh, man, I haven't laughed this hard since the first time I saw Bill Cosby: Himself.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:12:24 -0600

In case you hadn't noticed, CBT, passive voice and speaking as someone other than yourself in writing, is what the AP does when they want to make insinuations about people they don't want to come out and accuse directly.

Sanger is justifiably cautious on this score because of John's rules, but Sanger cannot resist, 100%, that incredible need to incite reactions from other people he seeks to insult.

That lack of self-discipline is why he speaks as someone other than himself, in that he uses passive voice and tries to make insinuations rather than outright claims. It's not a style I particularly care for, nor respect.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:07:30 -0600

I don't particularly want to smell Sanger's breath, and people should already know by now that social displays of dominance games like that simply demonstrates your own insecurity. Doesn't it.... CBT?

When people try to be aggressive on the most innoculous points made available, when they exceed hypersensitivity and go into "I'm afraid, so I'm going to see if the other guy is afraid too", what do you actually think is going to happen?

You can't make me walk according to your game. It's pointless. It is always pointless.

It doesn't matter how many people like that is out there. They can be one person in a room or a whole mob full of them in a room. It doesn't change fundamental human behaviors.

He's a nice guy, critical while being nice, but he knows how to be not nice and, given the dude's build, he can do it quite well.

Oh yes, I'm so scared he'll beat me with his superior intellect and wit.

Do you people even know what reconaissance is?

Well, here's a hint along with a thanks for the opening, CBT.

I might start to worry about things if Sanger actually read his own comments, instead of needing me to do that little chore for him. A person that needs an inferior subject like me to read him his own lines to answer his questions about what he actually wrote... well, let's just say that that is no Starbucks.

Comment from Charlie Browns Teacher on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:46:31 -0600

Is it just me or is there a pot/kettle vibe going on here?

And, really, on the internet trying to dare someone to 'say it to my face' is just silly. That's such a load of wasted bravado you know you're never going to have to back up. Really, like someone's going to drive/fly just to do it even if they felt like it? Sigh.

Oh, and having met Sanger, I wouldn't want to mess with the guy if I was anybody around here. He's a nice guy, critical while being nice, but he knows how to be not nice and, given the dude's build, he can do it quite well.

Plus, this is really killing the whole Cheers atmosphere. You don't punch out Cliff Claven. It's simply not done, dontchaknow.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:17:32 -0600

Whether you believe you are superior in intellect and wit compared to me or not, surely you must have already realized all manners of restraint I have put into place that benefits you?

Do you really believe you could free fire from a high tower at civilians and I would allow you to do so, had it not been for John's sake?

Comment from BillT on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:14:00 -0600

Why do you think I said it was *truncated*?

Sheesh.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:12:57 -0600

Sanger, do you really believe your ad hominem arguments does a thing against me, when you don't even have the precious audacity to speak them as yourself, word to word if not face to face?

Comment from sangerM on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:58:44 -0600

Hmmm.... ok:

The bullet thudded into the fleeing girl from behind, and for the first--and last--time in her too-short, too-dreamy life, the aspiring Moulin Rouge chorus girl lept forward into a perfectly executed, if somewhat canted arbesque that brusquely ended with her windmilling across the frozen parking lot into a faded-gray 70s-something Citroen, where she dropped like a ragdoll into the circle of steamy light oozing from the single dull overhead lamp. From the shadows, a soft gravelly voice sneered in the argot of the street, "well, whaddya know, I'se outta ammo...acourse d'at don't help d'at sniveley little twit none, do it? ha ha ha h......"

P.S. Nice touch on the cottenelle reference... I'll bet the billboard was smaller than all the others....

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:12:43 -0600

Looks like you ran out of ammo, Sanger. Can't help that.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:49:20 -0600

Oooo. Nice one, Bill. If we're going to kill this thread, might as well have fun doing it!

Comment from BillT on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:44:32 -0600

"It was a dark and stormy night, and the bare, gnarled branches of the winter-killed oak formed a canted arabesque before the truncated Cottonelle™ billboard."

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:03:09 -0600

Heh. "The bemused look from the canted arabesque of his tattooed face was revealing..."

Hah! Bring on the Bulwer-Lytton contest!

Comment from SangerM on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:40:15 -0600

CBT: As my Eyore says " thanks for noticin' ".

I just couldn't help myself, and that kind of opportunity rarely presents itself. Now if I could just figure out how to use 'canted arabesque' in a sentence, I'd really feel witty.... :-)

Comment from sangerM on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:12:30 -0600

"Ted "Splash" Kennedy and then here comes John Kerry who helped to murderer way too many South Vietnamese people and was almost made President from his seat in the Senate....we ain't talking about your patrons in the government, after all, unless we are, so there's nothing that binds you by duty to make such de-fenses as you have."

??

Geeze, I must really be slipping, 'cause I thought it would be pretty clear by now that I am simply not over-awed by the quality of the intellect behind these nonsensical comments. C'mon, can't we have something original, pertinent, AND correct? That might actually make this challenging as well as humorous.

Oh, and for the record, I absolutely despise in myself that I used to toss off inarticulate, fact-empty rantings that were clearly the strained efforts of my then-poorly trained and undereducated mind. Unfortunately, It's just one of the many things I see reflected back at me that keeps me humble...

:-)

( see John, I used a smiley... that makes it not mean, right?)

Comment from Charlie Browns Teacher on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:35:00 -0600

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/270129.php

That kinda sorta speaks to your points, Chief. And I thought the reason for going all over Joisey was obvious: it spreads uncertainty. Doing it disjointend like makes it harder to discern whether it is two people with different patterns or one person. This guy's a PhD with some mental problems, not stupid.

Oh, and having been a lab monkey, the unreproducable results thing isn't that special imo. Lab work is very much an Art, and some would say a Dark Art(I'm talking about you Dr. Power). Theory is definitely a science. There's a reason why some people make a career out of doing crystalography, and it's because crystalography isn't Betty Crocker cooking by numbers out of a box. Betty Crocker reproducibility is the myth but not the truth of working in a lab doing something other than 'boxed experiments'.

Honestly, I could care less who did Amerithrax. Just the same way I could care less who killed Shandra Levy. That's annoying to some, but that's how I see it. I care about measures to make sure it doesn't happen again. That means I get into nasty fights with Sigger, and before I hung up the lab coat with my bosses and co-workers about security. Colleges are too easy to get stuff from and the minimalist security makes figuring out who/what/where/when/how extremely difficult. Better to institute industry norm of RFID card for entry into working labs and detailed, updated monthly, inventory lists. It's a nuisance, can't hold office hours while I'm working kind of a thing, but it's smart and better all around.

Nice self reference there, Sanger. Grand Retort. Indeed. I'll raise my cup to that. ;)

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:29:51 -0600

For my money, a person who makes (or more precisely, 'believes') sweeping statements like this is as likely as not a person who would act thusly. We hate most those things in others that we despise most in ourselves.

You know you need an actual working mirror to know what you despise in yourselves, before you can go making sweeping statements about others.

To me, that's both nsulting and simple minded.

Ted "Splash" Kennedy and then here comes John Kerry who helped to murderer way too many South Vietnamese people and was almost made President from his seat in the Senate, and yet you're still sitting there talking about simple minded things about how they wouldn't be willing to bend or simply ignore the truth just to avoid unpleasant truths or to sweep murders under the rug.

?

We ain't talking about your patrons in the government, after all, unless we are, so there's nothing that binds you by duty to make such defenses as you have.

Comment from SangerM on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:30:26 -0600

Hiya BillT!.

I can't really argue against your points, and I don't have answers, but I do believe the FBI probably can and does. Not to say you're wrong, but rather that I don't know, in which case I am inclined to go with what feels right, i.e., that the FBI is likely to be right, given the folks knew in advance the scrutiny they were going to be placed under. Again, I might be wrong, but I don't think so in this case (famous last words an' all).

And I haven't really been hiding, I've just been preoccupied and having to make hard choices about where to spend my time and energies. Hopefully, I will be able to keep this up, as I really did miss it. Fingers crosst, etc.

Regards,
SangerM

Comment from SangerM on 2008-08-08

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:22:15 -0600

ooooh, a grand retort ... working mirror and all that. nice

I didn't say we are equal, however, because that'd just be stupid (did you get that from what I wrote?). I said "they represent us, and they are us in many ways" and it's either intentional obtuseness that led from what I wrote to such a mis-aimed rejoinder or it's a clear lack of understanding about the nature of our representative democracy . I'm betting it's some of both.

As for this "I don't seem to recall ever getting as many perks as Congress. Nor do I have the power to meddle in military and CIA and Executive matters like they have." Well, believe it or not, that power to 'meddle' was given to Congress on purpose, and with full understanding of the effects such power would have (read the Federalist Papers or some of the essays by Felix Frankenfurter, especially his "Federalism and the Role of the Supreme Court, 1958'). And of course, the Executive and the Judiciary have equally annoying powers, which each uses to advantage as often as it can. More important, Congress represents my interests pretty well, and though I may be but one voice among tens or hundreds of thousands, I have always gotten a response from a Senator I've written, and some of the time, I've actually been able to force changes in my world through that Senator. And meddling indeed is what I was doing to the military, which wasn't the slightest bit happy about my meddling, either!

And as for second-layer government agencies and departments, it's absolutely appropriate and right that Congress have the power to 'meddle' and I hope it keeps on meddling as much as it can. It may not be the best system there is, but I'd rather have this one than the kind of system they have in Mauritania, for example, where there was another military coup yesterday (the 2nd in 3 years) ostensibly carried out because the first ever freely and properly elected President tried to sack four Generals in the military and security police, all of whom were suspected of plotting a coup. Hmmm, self-fulfilling prophecy or just bad timing.... Who's to say?

Really, though, I meant what I said, and no amount of misdirection or self-inflicted myopia can change the fact that people have the government they create and support, no matter what country we are talking about, and in this country the people in charge are Americans just like me and everyone else who reads and posts here. No, we're not all the same, and thank God we're not all equal! What would I have to aspire to if not a better life with more control over my environment and my personal welfare than I have now?

Which brings me back to the original implication that somehow Congress in its entirety (being the homogenous uni-brain blob that it is) might be willing to bend or simply ignore the truth just to avoid unpleasant truths or to sweep murders under the rug. To me, that's both nsulting and simple minded.

V/R
SangerM

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-07

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:40:30 -0600

We elect our government, they represent us, and they are us, in many ways, whether we like the reflection we see in the mirror or not.

I don't seem to recall ever getting as many perks as Congress. Nor do I have the power to meddle in military and CIA and Executive matters like they have.

When you look in a mirror, be sure your mirror is actually working.

Comment from BillT on 2008-08-07

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:36:19 -0600

...authorities said Ivins had been obsessed with the sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma for more than 30 years. The letters were sent from a mailbox down the street from the sorority's offices at Princeton University.

Doesn't ring true, Sanger. If he'd been obsessed with the *sorority* for thirty years and had "a disturbing attitude toward women" as well as "homicidal and sociopathic thoughts" -- why wouldn't he also send KKG a letter?

— the FBI is ready to end the "Amerithrax" investigation by outlining its evidence against Ivins

The FBI had previously claimed Hatfill was the primary "person of interest," citing Hatfill's access to the particular strain of anthrax in the letters to Daschle and Leahy -- and had to backpedal when its lab released its findings that the spores were those commonly found in native US soil. Now the spores are more specifically identified -- which I can readily believe -- but the FBI is now ready to close the investigation without establishing a single link between Ivins and the other two areas from which the letters were sent.

If Ivins was the perp, why didn't he mail *all* the letters from Princeton? Why would he spend an additional hour and a half (the minimum time needed to drive between the three locations, considering routes and traffic) driving around, looking for outlier USPS facilities, when there were others in closer proximity? Why use a drop-box in Princeton, but seek out the main POs in two other locations (and you *do* have to look for them, because they're on side streets)?

Which leaves more than enough reason for valid speculation that Ivins wasn't a solo player, if he was indeed a player at all.

BTW -- welcome back, buddy! You've been hiding too long...

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-08-07

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:08:58 -0600

From what I've seen of the reportage on the unsealed documents, I think you are probably right, Sanger.

As for Pazooters thoughts... well, interesting causal linkages, but I trust more in Occam's Razor.

Comment from SangerM on 2008-08-07

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 06:16:51 -0600

And it may just be that the FBI is right and they were close to nailing the guy. True, a lot of the information seems to be circumstantial, but not all of it is according to what I've read, and contrary to popular happy-land belief, everyone who works for the government is not a buffoon or a loser who can't find good work anywhere else. I've worked as a gov't contractor, a gov't employee, and a straight commercial employee (not affiliated with the U.S. gov't in any way) for more than 30 years, and dollar for dollar, I'd say the U.S. public gets a lot more than it pays for from its direct employees, and usually at least what it pays for from its contractor employees and often a lot more (caveats apply of course). This is especially true when it comes to levels of education, dedication to the job, etc. In fact, I returned to working for the gov't from the commercial world because I wanted to be in a more professional environment, where duty, honor, country, and etc. were more than just vague memories from high school civics class or just another reason for the ignorant to mock people.

So was the FBI right? I don't know, but given the sensitivity of this issue, and the complete lack (so far as I've seen) of meaningful public rebuttal to the unsealed case documents, etc., I feel compelled to believe the FBI probably had more than enough real evidence to make a decent case.

More to the point, it doesn't matter if only one of the many points of evidence was 100% provable, that one fact makes the connection and the case, e.g., the accused was the only person who had (and controlled) access to the flask containing the anthrax. The rest is supporting evidence that adds weight to the main points of the case, but even without it, even just one irrefutable incriminating fact is more than enough to make a case. I don't know for certain (not having seen the actual case documents), but from what I've read, it sounds like the FBI had more than one such fact to present.

Which brings me to stuff like this "When the Congresscritters get threatened, watch out, there ain't no corner too sharp for them to cut to protect themselves." Please! We elect our government, they represent us, and they are us, in many ways, whether we like the reflection we see in the mirror or not. For my money, a person who makes (or more precisely, 'believes') sweeping statements like this is as likely as not a person who would act thusly. We hate most those things in others that we despise most in ourselves.

Certainly we all know or have tales of woe relating to government ineptitude, but the U.S. Government is a big organization, and what I also know is that people who work for the government (elected, appointed, enlisted, or hired) are not routinely inept, evil, or prone to corruption and conspiracy. At least no more so--and in my opinion, much less so--than any of the people I've ever worked with in the commercial world. That too is part of the reason I returned to government work--that and the fact that I wanted to do something that actually mattered with my life.

But anyway, yeah, I know I could be very wrong, and all the conspiracy theorists (CTs) might be 100 per cent correct, but for now I'm leaning toward the FBI actually having a clue and the CTs being mostly chowderheads. that just feels right, and it's a whole lot more satisfying view of the world...

V/R
SangerM

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-08-07

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:18:24 -0600

And, we needed an Anthrax attack days after 9/11 and 3000 dead to convince us to follow? I don't think so. Try again.

Comment from Pazooter in WA on 2008-08-06

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:59:24 -0600

Seems to me this is a perfect case of agent provocateur in action. And what an interesting concept that introduces! That would mean Ivins was scouted and preped some time prior to 9/11. The FIBs could be just as big of dupes here as any of us. Yes, it's a conspiracy theory, but then again, does anyone really think Uncle Cheney (maybe with a little Rove help) would not be up to the task if it meant convincing America to follow their lead against terrorism?

Ivins had a long history of mental therapy; he had the access to the anthrax. What better dupe could possibly be found?

Comment from Justthisguy on 2008-08-06

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:11:57 -0600

P.s. Mounting my hobbyhorse here, I'm proposing that the Feds leaned on the Aspie geek, 'cause he was like, weird, y'know? And check out Ivins' "therapist" and her arrest record. Man is she a piece of work! As Phil Hendrie said this morning, the Feebs better be absolutely sure they got the right guy, with ironclad proof, or they deserve never ever to be believed again about anything, after all of their previous screwups.

Comment from Justthisguy on 2008-08-06

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:05:41 -0600

There's been quite a bit of discussion about this over at http://www.jerrypournelle.com. Jerry laments that these days, it just ain't prudent to be candid with LEOs, and that that ain't no way to run a Republic.

Comment from Ymarsakar on 2008-08-06

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:58:58 -0600

When the Congresscritters get threatened, watch out, there ain't no corner too sharp for them to cut to protect themselves.

Comment from BillT on 2008-08-06

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:49:02 -0600

Anthrax-laced letters were also mailed from the post offices in Ewing and Hamilton Townships -- both are about fifteen miles from Princeton and twenty miles from each other.

Wonder if the FBI will announce they'd suddenly discovered a link between Ivins and those places, or if they'll just continue to quietly ignore them...