Friday, 1 August 2008

Whence the anthrax attacks?

I am not generally prone to conspiratorial views, but this anthrax story is completely unbelievable, in the original sense as not worthy of belief: Bruce Ivins, a long-time employee of the government biological warfare laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland, is now accused of originating the anthrax attack that was used to whip up belligerance and justify the conquest of Iraq.

He was reported to have committed suicide as the investigators closed in by taking an overdose of prescription Tylenol.

Given the huge importance of this attack in constructing the national consensus to invade Iraq, this story is of enormous importance. The unanswered questions leap from the page, and this is only Day One:
  • If Ivins had ‘a history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, plans and actions’ and had been described by his psychiatrist as ‘homicidal and sociopathic’ (AP), WHY WAS HE WORKING ON BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS?
  • On what basis did the entire Washington establishment suggest immediately after the 2001 anthrax attacks that Saddam Hussein was responsible since it now turns out he was not?
  • Who were the multiple anonymous sources who kept insisting on the Iraqi connection, providing convenient fuel for the anti-Hussein war fever in the highly sensitive days after 9/11?
  • Why were selected journalists in Washington warned to take the anthrax antidote, ciprin, days before the attack? Did someone know it was coming? Who? How?
  • Why did the FBI ignore all evidence except that implicating Steven Hatfill and leak it relentlessly to the news media, resulting in a $5.8 million settlement for Hatfill from that police agency as an apology for its misconduct?

And most chilling of all. . .

  • Was Ivins, if he was in fact the culprit, working alone?

No comments: