Richard Spertzel Has Compelling Argument

From the Wall Street Journal:

Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit

By RICHARD SPERTZEL
August 5, 2008

Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.

But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone.

I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.

Let's start with the anthrax in the letters to Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The spores could not have been produced at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked, without many other people being aware of it. Furthermore, the equipment to make such a product does not exist at the institute.

Information released by the FBI over the past seven years indicates a product of exceptional quality. The product contained essentially pure spores. The particle size was 1.5 to 3 microns in diameter. There are several methods used to produce anthrax that small. But most of them require milling the spores to a size small enough that it can be inhaled into the lower reaches of the lungs. In this case, however, the anthrax spores were not milled.

What's more, they were also tailored to make them potentially more dangerous. According to a FBI news release from November 2001, the particles were coated by a "product not seen previously to be used in this fashion before." Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That's what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.

Another FBI leak indicated that each particle was given a weak electric charge, thereby causing the particles to repel each other at the molecular level. This made it easier for the spores to float in the air, and increased their retention in the lungs.

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 to the use of the weak electric charge.

The latest line of speculation asserts that the anthrax's DNA, obtained from some of the victims, initially led investigators to the laboratory where Ivins worked. But the FBI stated a few years ago that a complete DNA analysis was not helpful in identifying what laboratory might have made the product.

Furthermore, the anthrax in this case, the "Ames strain," is one of the most common strains in the world. Early in the investigations, the FBI said it was similar to strains found in Haiti and Sri Lanka. The strain at the institute was isolated originally from an animal in west Texas and can be found from Texas to Montana following the old cattle trails. Samples of the strain were also supplied to at least eight laboratories including three foreign laboratories. Four French government laboratories reported on studies with the Ames strain, citing the Pasteur Institute in Paris as the source of the strain they used. Organism DNA is not a very reliable way to make a case against a scientist.

The FBI has not officially released information on why it focused on Ivins, and whether he was about to be charged or arrested. And when the FBI does release this information, we should all remember that the case needs to be firmly based on solid information that would conclusively prove that a lone scientist could make such a sophisticated product.

From what we know so far, Bruce Ivins, although potentially a brilliant scientist, was not that man. The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparations, not powdered products.

The FBI spent between 12 and 18 months trying "to reverse engineer" (make a replica of) the anthrax in the letters sent to Messrs. Daschle and Leahy without success, according to FBI news releases. So why should federal investigators or the news media or the American public believe that a lone scientist would be able to do so?

Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, was a member of the Iraq Survey Group.

What he doesn't say is that the anthrax attack was during that week when the WH was trying to rush through the Patriot Act without anyone reading it. Also, why have Bush and others in his administration repeatedly said we haven't had a terrorist attack in the US since 9-11? Something is fishy here.


UPDATE 8-7-08: Dave over at Orcinus found this report from 2002 which counterdicts most of the FBI's press conference. Glenn Greenwald has done his typical well-researched investigation on this subject too and comes up skeptical as well.

I'm so tired of being lied to by this administration.

Fibbers, Liars, and Damn Liars

You've probably all see the scarey pictures this week and if it goes according to Bush's plan -- gotten scared enough to support a war in Iran. BUT it's a FAKE!! Here's Fox's version, Getty's version, from the Herald in the UK, and the BBC:






Isn't Photoshop great?! This is so wrong! When are we going to wake up? The lies are so thick no one can tell what the truth is.

My Congressman Enables Bush's FISA Immunity

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Congressmen Baird and Smith both ignored this Amendment and voted this morning to pass the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The FISA Amendments Act provide legal immunity to telecommunications companies who helped the federal government with a warrantless surveillance program during the Bush administration, which gathered information about the phone records of American citizens.

According to a May 11, 2006 report by USA Today, "The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime." ... 60 Minutes did a segment on Mark Klein, a veteran telecommunications technician and computer network associate at AT&T, who described a secret room he says the National Security Agency had set up on the sixth floor of an AT&T building in downtown San Francisco. Klein said his employer was colluding with the federal government to siphon a copy of billions of domestic Internet communications into that secret room, every second of every day -- and all without a warrant.

Proponents of the surveillance program say it is in response to the attacks on 9/11, they only eavesdrop on terrorists, and it’s necessary to combat terrorism. However, the Washington Post reported on Oct. 13, 2007 that former Qwest executive Joseph Nacchio said in court papers, "the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Qwest is the one telecommunications company who reportedly refused to cooperate with the NSA on the grounds they believed doing so would have been illegal.

Thanks to Congressmen Baird and Smith we will never have a private conversation again. They will claim that “new” exclusivity provisions in FISA mean no president will ever be able to ignore the established surveillance laws ever again. But these “new” provisions do not really differ from the old "exclusivity" provision of the old FISA law that was on the books when George W. Bush instituted his illegal programs:

[P]rocedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

Bush’s lawyers -- people like John Yoo -- said Bush that the president had the "inherent power" to ignore the FISA provisions in the name of "national security." So Bush did it -- despite the existence of the exclusivity provisions.

I think we now can see why they have both been against the impeachment of George Bush – they have been complicit by enabling and covering up Bush’s crimes and that might come to light if there was a real impeachment inquiry.

Shame on you Congressmen!

Torture

George Bush has made me sick a lot over many of his actions but there is nothing he's done that has upset me more than his ordering torture in my name. I am ashamed, mad, scared. Another blog set out the basic attempts to justify the use of torture are:

1. The Euphemism Gambit. The Torture Apologist has no better friend than the scare quote. Take any outrage against human dignity, stick it in scare quotes, and voila! You've suddenly announced that both the victim and the protestor against the outrage are faintly ridiculous bed-wetters we can all snicker at. So you write, for instance, "Some Defeatocrats who care more about terrorists than about the 3000 people we lost on 9/11 whine that waterboarding is "torture", but I think blah blah blah, etc." Also useful to the Euphemist is the Orwellian multi-syllabic word. Don't call it "strappado" or "the cold cell". That makes people think of the Spanish Inquisition or the terrifying basement of Stalin's Lubyanka. Call it "enhanced interrogation" (NOT "Verschärfte Vernehmung" even thought that means "enhanced interrogation"). That upbeat yet bland phrase makes people think "Our interrogation scientists in their clean white lab coats are making wonderful breakthroughs in the science of Keeping Us Safe!"

Case in point: Michelle Malkin

2. The "Appeal to the Extremely Hypothetical Extreme Situation" gambit (the Ticking Time Bomb, for instance).

Case in point: Alan Dershowitz

3. The "Pretend It's Impossible to Ever Know What Torture Is" gambit. This is done by saying, "Oh. I oppose torture, but could you please define for me *precisely* what torture is in a way that can never ever ever create the slightest semantic confusion in a forum of 2000 internet readers who are bound and determined to look for loopholes? I promise I am totally sincere!" In short, you pretend to be baffled about how to define torture for ever, reject all attempted definitions, refuse to offer your own, and then shrug that, much as you'd like to obey the Church, there's simply no way to know what torture is, so it's best to just maintain the status quo (which just happens to be that the Bush Administration can order the torture of anybody it deems an illegal combatant).

Perfect example: Michael Mukasey and here's a good YouTube
...

5. The "Human Rights are Only for *Legally Recognized* Human Beings" feint. This is a favorite for people who fancy themselves masters of international law. The argument is basically the same as Catholics for a Free Choice. Point to some loophole in human law and use it to trump the law of God. The Catholics for a Free Choice person says "I can't see where a fetus is a human being in the image and likeness of God in US law, so let's kill it!" The torture advocate says, "I can't see where an illegal combatant is a human being in the image and likeness of God in international *or* US law, so let's torture it!"

As defined by George Bush himself. Cheney and Rumsfeld also concur.

6. The "We Can Kill People in Wartime, So Why Can't We Torture Them Too?" maneuver. The key is to will yourself to be too stupid to recognize the difference between shooting somebody in combat and mowing helpless prisoners down with a machine gun. Once an enemy becomes a prisoner, you can't shoot him anymore because he possesses certain rights as a human being in the image of God. For the same reason, you can't torture him.

Tom Stephens wrote extensively about this

7. The "These Bastards Deserve Whatever They Get!" shout. While cathartic, what this line of emoting fails to attend to is that we have now departed the last shred of sanity in justifying torture and made clear that the purpose of torture is not "gathering intelligence" (it is notoriously bad for that) but working out our vengeance against and hatred of the enemy. That is one of the reasons the Church opposes it: it degrades us. The victim suffers the pains of this life, but we endanger our own souls with the everlasting pains of hell. In addition, it overlooks the fact that some of the people we have tortured did not, in fact, "deserve" it. 80% of the victims at Abu Ghraib had not been charged with anything. Maher Arar: perfectly innocent. Abdallah Higazy: innocent. Dilawar: innocent. So the result is very often that you lose your soul and get *nothing* in return. Or else you get bad intel like the "confessions" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that sent us off on wild goose chases (confessions extracted after threatening to torture his *children*, by the way).

We saw Mitt Romney support this during the Republican YouTube debate
...

10. Also popular is the "So you're saying we should give the terrorists a kiss and a glass of warm milk and tuck them in at night!" This is a favorite straw man approach from people suffering from the bipolar notion that the only alternative to war crimes is delusional happy face pollyanna unreality. Such people forget that this is not the first war we've ever fought and that we do have a long experience of treating prisoners humanely without torturing them.

We know this because Cheney told us that the detainees are being treated better than they would be by any other government on the face of the earth.

11. This amnesia also accounts for another favorite rhetorical trope: The "9/11 Changed Everything" cry of Generation Narcissus. Being a Generation that fancies itself the summit of all human history, it is a generation that tends to talk as Never Before Have We Faced Such Evil. Therefore, war crimes are okay because it not like we're fighting pantywaists like Nazis and Communists. We are the grand exception to the general rule against war crimes because our enemies are uniquely, extra-special super-duper evil. Ours is a high and lonely destiny, etc. blah blah.

Again from VP Cheney
...

I'm sick of this. We have GOT to stop torturing and atone!

Brothers Foist Staged Election

Bush, when questionned about Fidel Castro's retirement, said that he expects the Cubans to hold free and fair elections --- "and I mean free and fair, not those staged elections the Castro brothers try to foist off on the people."

I had to do a Scooby-Doo "Huh?!" and almost caused whiplash on myself.

I want to ask him "You mean an election like the one you and your brother Jeb foisted off on us in Florida in 2000?"

Of course I have to do that in my fantasy life because no journalist will ask the question.

New York Times Editorial

The NY Times had a good editorial this morning on the capitulation of the Democratic Senate and Congress.

The Democrats, however, also deserve a large measure of blame. They did almost nothing while they were in the minority to demand better nominees than Mr. Bush was sending up. And now that they have attained the majority, they are not doing any better.

On Thursday, the Senate voted by 53 to 40 to confirm Mr. Mukasey even though he would not answer a simple question: does he think waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning used to extract information from a prisoner, is torture and therefore illegal?

Democrats offer excuses for their sorry record, starting with their razor-thin majority. But it is often said that any vote in the Senate requires more than 60 votes — enough to overcome a filibuster. So why did Mr. Mukasey get by with only 53 votes? Given the success the Republicans have had in blocking action when the Democrats cannot muster 60 votes, the main culprit appears to be the Democratic leadership, which seems uninterested in or incapable of standing up to Mr. Bush.

Glenn Greenwald asked the same question earlier this week.

I'm more and more disappointed and Congressman Smith's performance yesterday really put the icing on it for me.

Throw the bums out!

Report from the NW Progressive Convention

America in Solidarity held a convention today in Tacoma. The keynote speaker was Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey. She was a hit, of course. She said that John Conyers agreed to get the Kucinich Cheney impeachment bill through committee as soon as possible.

Next came Congressman Adam Smith. I generally like him but he really irritated me and pissed off a bunch of people at the convention. When asked about why more isn't being done to get us out of Iraq he first tried to complain that we don't give the Democrats enough credit for what they have accomplished -- they raised minimum wages, for Gawd's sake. Then he told a story of how the Republicans were on board to hold Bush's feet to the fire in September but then we progressives started giving all the Democratic Congress persons grief for votes we were disappointed in and the approval rating for Congress dropped to 19% -- thus the Republicans saw there was no political advantage to supporting withdrawal and their support evaporated. So it was all our fault. He said we need to hold the Republican's feet to the fire. Yep. He blamed us. It's our fault for not being so thrilled and grateful that minimum wage increased that we forgot about Iraq and showered them with approval ratings.

Smith also danced around and said impeachment was unlikely -- they were too busy with other work. When I questioned him about the various crimes becoming precedent and inherited powers he said there were other ways to prevent that but didn't enumerate them.

What a disappointment!

Oh! Darcy Burner was there too. She ws on a panel with a lawyer from the ALCU, Sal Munigia, and the co-founder of the Backbone Campaign, Bill Moyer. They spoke about civil rights. Darcy was really smokin'! She said those who give immunity to AT&T and the other phone companies as part of the FISA bill are cowards and traitors. You Go Girl!! She also said what connects us as Americans is not our religion, the color of our skin or hair, or our language -- but instead we are bound together as Americans through our fundamental belief in core values as expressed by our Constitution and it's worth protecting. We've GOT to get her elected.

Great Quotes

“And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.”

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

“There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”
Robert Kennedy

“We cannot build our own future without helping others to build theirs.”

Bill Clinton

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself.” and Confidence... thrives on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection and on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"We're kickin' ass."

George w. Bush

What an embarrassment!

Gonzales Resigns!!

I guess he needs to spend more time with his family or something. Bush blamed the Dems for dragging his name through the mud. I say: "You're welcome!"

Dragging his name through the mud couldn't have happen if he hadn't begged for us to do it. He was given extraordinary opportunities to come clean. He should spend the next several months practicing this word: "oops" and purge the words "I can't recall" from his vocabulary.

I'm sorry he wasn't successful. He has an compelling personal story. Too bad he hitched his star to the wrong person.

Why Are We Footdragging and Where Are Our Heroes?

Just to refresh our memories -- a blast from the past -- when a Congressperson was a hero and spoke for the people:

Barbara Jordan's speech on The Articles of Impeachment delivered July 25, 1974.

King George's Latest Attempt at a Dictatorship

Check out this article in Newhouse News and see if you don't get as outraged as I am.

Seems that Rep. DeFazio (D-OR)was denied permission to see the contingency plan for how Bush Co. plans to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack.

. . . As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom'' in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED. . .

Would somebody please Bitch-Slap that poser before we turn into a facist state!??

Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

I agree with Jeralyn E. Merrittover at Talk Left

In the most blatant disregard for the law in quite a while, President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence.

The man is the worst President in the history of the nation and this is merely confirmation of the contempt he holds for the law, the Constitution, and the American People.

I say let's storm the White House -- This man is a disgrace and failure!

De-Fund Cheney

We need to show the American people that this corrupt, incompetent and evil administration must still answer to the people.

Think Progress reports we tax payers could save $4.75 million this year alone. Congressman Rahm Emanuel (usually not one of my "faves" but on target this time) says he will introduce legislation to remove funding for Dick's plush office and all his minions.

I say DO IT!! Make every mealy mouth Republithug choke out a lame but public defense for this King wanna be.

Update:
See Hominid Views for another idea. Also Todd Gitlin over at TPM Cafe has a better quote:

Is this not one of those extraordinary moments when the people's representatives will actually vote on whether to fund the horrific farce that is this administration?

.
Finally my hero, Digby, of course, says it best:

The Republicans keep daring the Dem majority to stop funding the things they object to and the Democrats keep getting tied up in knots over it. I don't know if this is constitutional or if it is p[ractical, but I do know that a debate on the floor of the House over Vice President Cheney's assertion that he answers to no one is the kind of thing that might be able to compete with Paris Hilton and some roid-raged killer wrestler on the evening news and bring home the fact that our government has gone completely batshit crazy.

Update 6/27/07 9AM
I decided to date & time stamp these updates since things seem to be changing rapidly. Politico thinks Cheney is backing down. I usually don't find Politico that reliable, more of a right wing talking point disseminator -- but this doesn't seem like their typical report. Could it be true?

Dick Cheney's office is abandoning a justification for keeping the Vice-President's secret papers out of the hands of the National Archives.

Officials working for Cheney had tried to claim he is separate from the executive branch, but they will no longer pursue that defense, senior administration officials tell The Politico.

The decision follows a threat by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the No. 3 House Democrat, to try to cut off the office’s $4.8 million in executive-branch funding.

Townhall with Congressman Adam Smith

I attended Congressman Adam Smith’s (D-WA) Townhall today. He started with some general comments about how the Democratic majority and Bush are learning to work together and commented that they don’t have a history of cooperation so this has been a difficult process.

The topics he introduced and gave us an update on included: (1) Funding for veterans (2) Energy reform (3) Immigration reform (4) The deficit (5) Defense (6) No child left behind (7) Iraq.

Some of his best lines and ideas included:

o He wants a service wide re-entry program for all returning veterans which includes health care.
o He indicated that he thinks we need to ignore (my words not his) the issue of the 15-20 million illegals in this country before we can reform immigration. He admits that we cannot round them up and deport them but sees this issue as holding up meaningful discussion.
o Adam Smith talked about the confusing an convoluted tax code and said this was primarily due to all the special tax laws that are constantly being phased in and phased out.
o He’s not for single payer healthcare because he sees cost containment as a major problem in our health care system. He also said that incentives are paid for certain medical procedures that may not be necessary such as certain prescriptions and surgeries and by making this more efficient we could divert these wasted funds into better and more financially efficient procedures.
o George Bush is delaying the political situation in Iraq that needs to happen and propping up a Prime Minister that will never let that happen.
o Bush’s capacity to believe things that fit his view of the world cannot be underestimated.
o Access by everyone to the civil justice system is the greatest democraticizer.
o Sovereignty is ours. We negotiate what sovereignty to let go of and we should never give up something unless we get something of value for it.
o We shouldn’t call Congress people who fail our way as not having courae. Courage shows up on the battlefield and very rarely by pushing a button on the House floor.
o They will vote to restore habeas corpus next week.

When he opened the floor to questions he got MANY questions regarding why we’re not impeaching Bush. You could tell he’d gotten these questions many times before. He gave unsatisfying answers about bitterly divide the Country, need 67 Senate votes, not up to his standards of impeachment, blah, blah, blah.

I didn’t challenge him because I was saving my question to talk about toxic food imports. He agreed that FDA needs to be strengthened and promised they would discuss it at next weeks Trade Policy Caucus meeting.
We thanked him for his “yea” votes on the McGovern and Schiff amendments.

He took many great questions about our returning vets and promised to look into the use of the nursing home at American Lake, consider a traumatic brain injury trauma center at Madigan, increase case workers at the VA and change their mission to be advocates for the vets, and got other information about our vets. (He’s GREAT on these issues!)

He wants GitMo closed (yeah!), greater oversight on past contracts (Yippie!), and alternative fuels and raising the CAFÉ standards (OK!).

All in all, I left there feeling pretty good.

Another Report on that FDA Conference Call

Rick Pearlstein also participated with that FDA conference call and reports:

"I know this has sort of been asked," another reporter pleaded, but why can't the FDA tell people which four companies had taken delivery of poisoned pet food ingredients before Fido finds out the hard way? "Our efforts," came the response, "are limited to...finished products that might reach consumers on the shelves."

And there it was. Conservative "government" at work. When it comes to foreign policy, the Bush Administration has propounded a "one percent doctrine": Even if there's a one percent chance they represent a threat, a country should be invaded anyway. When it comes to pork products people might eat--wouldn't want to put a corporation at risk.

Thom Hartmann frequently says that when we put people who don't believe in government in charge of the government, they do their best to dismantle it. Thom believes that the Bush administration has been effective in their goals.

Remind me -- why are we not impeaching them?

Inherited Powers

Where does the president get his power? Well, there's Article 2 of the Constitution and then there's "inherited powers". Inherited powers are those powers other presidents have used before them and we've let them get away with.

Signing statements, preparing and itching for a war not declared by Congress, falsely calling it "a time of war" when Congress didn't authorize it (to gather more powers) wire tapping without warrants, mail inspections also without warrants, holding people, even citizens!, without due process, ghost planes, torture -- the list goes on and on -- he's stacked the Court with his supporters that are willing to twist the law to protect him. The torture bill the Republican Congress passed last year limits liability for this President (some say even sets him up for a pardon if somehow the Court grew some balls).

We can't rely on the courts to protect us. If we, don't impeach him all of these powers become inherited powers. If we don't impeach him we'd better be very careful about selecting all subsequent Presidents because they'll inherit all these powers and have precedence to grab even more.