Did White House send anthrax and blame Al Qaeda after 9-11?

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
One week after 9/11, letters containing weapons grade anthrax were mailed to ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, the New York Post, and to the National Enquirer. Two more letters were mailed to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. Five people died.


FBI director Robert Mueller was verbally attacked during a White House briefing on Oct 5 for failing to link the anthrax to Osama Bin Laden.

The anthrax was later identified as a highly secured weapons grade from Fort Detrick. World experts claim that as few as a handful of people in the world can manufacture this type of weapon material.

The White House, including Bush and Cheney, and other senior officials, notably John McCain, verbally linked the anthrax to Al Qaeda in press releases and conferences. McCain said in October 2001 that the anthrax may have come from Iraq, and that Iraq would be the second wave (after Afghanistan) in the war on terror.

(scan down to 1 minute, watch until 1:20)


Bush repeatedly leaked information to the press in late 2001, supposedly reliable, linking Al Qaeda and/or Iraq to the anthrax attacks.

Recently, Bruce Ivins was found dead, supposedly a suicide. His colleagues report that whereas he is an expert on virology, he knows nothing about weaponizing the anthrax.

Steven Hatfill, the last FBI suspect, sued the government and won a huge multi-million dollar lawsuit against the FBI.

Bush and White House staff began taking Cipro, an anti-anthrax antibiotic, after 9-11, but well before any anthrax had appeared (WTF?)

So what do we know? Or think we know?

The anthrax came from the US military, which is headed by George Bush. It was sent to the media and to leading US Democratic Senators. Bush and his staff were on anti-anthrax medications before the anthrax was sent. Who sent it? Obviously the White House staff knew the anthrax was at least on the loose. And once it appeared, instead of using the information that they had, they attempted to use the anthrax attacks to rally public support for war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

And John McCain was a key player in this faulty manipulation of public opinion. An inside attack used to rally support against the enemies of the White House. Exactly the sort of thing that comprises high crimes and misdemeanors.

What will come of this in days to come? The coverup at this point, is astounding!
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
C'mon,you're better than this.Your 9/11 conspiracy theories are kind of silly but they dont even approach this on the stupidity scale.
The evidence is VERY clear.

The anthrax came from a US military lab.

The White House KNEW the anthrax was on the loose before 9-11. They were all taking high doses of Cipro (which they apparently didn't give to the Democratic Senators who were sent the highest grades of anthrax).

The White House BERATED the FBI for failing to find evidence to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq or Al Qaeda.

The White House, and John McCain, repeatedly tied the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Al Qaeda, DESPITE THERE BEING ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOVER THAT THEY WERE LINKED.

This, as one part of evidence, led to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. The war on Iraq, in particular, was built on trumped up evidence. Anthrax attacks. Links to Al Qaeda. WMDs. Nigerian Yellowcake. High strength aluminum tubes.

And every bit of this evidence was massively falsified and fed to an American public terrified over terrorist attacks on US soil that killed several thousand Americans. Going to war based on falsified evidence of chemical weapons, WMDs, and nucular development, is absolutely treason.

And John McCain was at the center of the troops, helping whip the public into a frenzy that would support war, by linking the anthrax to Al Qaeda and Iraq.

And now John McCain is running for president.
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

ABC News' claim -- which they said came at first from "three well-placed but separate sources," followed by "four well-placed and separate sources" -- was completely false from the beginning. There never was any bentonite detected in the anthrax (a fact ABC News acknowledged for the first time in 2007 only as a result of my badgering them about this issue). It's critical to note that it isn't the case that preliminary tests really did detect bentonite and then subsequent tests found there was none. No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
C'mon,you're better than this.Your 9/11 conspiracy theories are kind of silly but they dont even approach this on the stupidity scale.
-What's stupid about it? McCain and others went around spreading the lie that Iraq / and or AQ could have mailed those letters. Out right fear mongering to gain traction for their unnecessary, unlawful and totally misguided invasion and occupation of Iraq. How can you refute that?

Since no one knew where the sh!t came from at the time and we'd just lost 3000 people to muslim crazies it was entirely reasonable to say that it MIGHT have come al Quaeda...

What a short selective memory we(you)have....or are you just having a long senior moment?
The claims rapidly evolved to blame Iraq, not Al Qaeda, although other "reliable" evidence linked the two.

Why can't you just accept the FACT that the White House, with the aid of John McCain, made sh1t up to further the cause of war in Iraq? Really serious sh1t.

After a certain point, it really ceases being funny. The country was BLATANTLY manipulated into supporting a war against a nation that posed no imminent threat and had no relation to Al Qaeda or 9-11, and there was NEVER ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT IT DID. And in the aftermath this became really clear. No yellowcake. No WMDs. No chemical labs. No links to Al Qaeda.

Even in 2002 and 2003, anyone interested enough could see that the only evidence produced by anyone was subject to confidentiality and could not be released. We just had to trust our leaders.

And what should happen in a democracy such as ours when the leaders abuse that public trust so unmercifully, is that these same leaders should be ousted from office, if not tried, convicted, and incarcerated for violating the public trust that they took an oath to uphold.

And that is exactly what we should do about it. When America gets attacked, we should determine who did it, and do something about it. We should not use the attack as fodder for our favorite feeding of the military-industrial complex.
 

SmackDaddy

Duke status
Feb 12, 2002
18,919
0
0
San Diego, CA
During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

ABC News' claim -- which they said came at first from "three well-placed but separate sources," followed by "four well-placed and separate sources" -- was completely false from the beginning. There never was any bentonite detected in the anthrax (a fact ABC News acknowledged for the first time in 2007 only as a result of my badgering them about this issue). It's critical to note that it isn't the case that preliminary tests really did detect bentonite and then subsequent tests found there was none. No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.
Bentonite huh? Bentonite is a naturally occuring expansive clay, and there are several variations. I'd love to see how this is used with anthrax. I use betonite all the time to plug soil borings, but only Iraq has betonite! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Bentonite
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

ABC News' claim -- which they said came at first from "three well-placed but separate sources," followed by "four well-placed and separate sources" -- was completely false from the beginning. There never was any bentonite detected in the anthrax (a fact ABC News acknowledged for the first time in 2007 only as a result of my badgering them about this issue). It's critical to note that it isn't the case that preliminary tests really did detect bentonite and then subsequent tests found there was none. No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.
Bentonite huh? Bentonite is a naturally occuring expansive clay, and there are several variations. I'd love to see how this is used with anthrax. I use betonite all the time to plug soil borings, but only Iraq has betonite! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Bentonite

Quoted from the top (but not all of the long report). This was one of the first ABC/bentonite/Iraq reports.
-------------------------
October 26, 2001
Troubling Anthrax Additive Found
By ABCNEWS.com

Despite a last-minute denial from the White House, sources tell ABCNEWS the anthrax in the tainted letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was laced with bentonite. The potent additive is known to have been used by only one country in producing biochemical weapons — Iraq.

ABCNEWS has been told by three well-placed and separate sources that initial tests on an anthrax-laced letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle have detected a troubling chemical additive that authorities consider their first significant clue yet.

An urgent series of tests conducted on the letter at Ft. Detrick, Md., and elsewhere discovered the anthrax spores were treated with bentonite, a substance that keeps the tiny particles floating in the air by preventing them from sticking together. The easier the particles are to inhale, the more deadly they are.

As far as is known, only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons.

Just minutes before ABCNEWS' World News Tonight aired this report, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer flatly denied bentonite was found on the letters. Moments later, another senior White House official backed off Fleischer's comments, saying it does not appear to be bentonite "at this point."

The official said the Ft. Detrick findings represented an "opinionated analysis," that three other labs are conducting tests, and that one of those labs had contradicted the bentonite finding. But, the official added, "tests continue."

While it's possible countries other than Iraq may be using the additive, it is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program.

"It means to me that Iraq becomes the prime suspect as the source of the anthrax used in these letters," former U.N. weapons inspector Timothy Trevan told ABCNEWS.

In the process of destroying much of Iraq's biological arsenal, U.N. teams first discovered Iraq was using bentonite, which is found in soil around the world, including the United States and Iraq.

"That discovery was proof positive of how they were using bentonite to make small particles," former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel told ABCNEWS.

But officials cautioned today that even if Iraq or renegade Iraqi scientists prove to be the source, it's a separate issue from who actually sent the anthrax through the mail.

"What you have to keep in mind is the difference between knowledge about what type of information you have to have to produce it, and who could have sent it," Fleischer said. "They are totally separate topics that could involve totally separate people. It could be the same person or people. It could be totally different people. The information does not
apply to who sent it."

Experts say the bentonite discovery doesn't rule out a very well-equipped lab using the Iraqi technique. In fact, commercial spray dryers that Iraq used to produce its biological weapons were bought on the open market from the Danish subsidiary of a U.S. company for about $100,000 a piece.

Starting Thursday, FBI agents began asking company officials in Columbia, Md., if anyone suspicious in this country had recently acquired one of them.

— Brian Ross, Christopher Isham, Chris Vlasto and Gary Matsumoto
 

tsenn

Billy Hamilton status
Feb 11, 2004
1,357
176
63
san diego
But why? Why would our government do this? Are we pulling oil out of Iraq? So Haliburton can make a few more bucks? What else?
 

katmanking

Nep status
May 7, 2008
731
0
0
LA
the guy whose been accused and killed himself was working with anthrax...
and anthrax is a pretty predictable bio-weapon so it'd make sense that they'd take vaccines
also why would they take vaccines if they were the ones doing it?

it is pretty obvious that they manipulated facts to build support for the iraq war, but as far as it being a plan to become a dictator or something has either failed or was never existent
 

katmanking

Nep status
May 7, 2008
731
0
0
LA
the guy whose been accused and killed himself was working with anthrax...
and anthrax is a pretty predictable bio-weapon so it'd make sense that they'd take vaccines
also why would they take vaccines if they were the ones doing it?

it is pretty obvious that they manipulated facts to build support for the iraq war, but as far as it being a plan to become a dictator or something has either failed or was never existent

I'm not saying there was a devious plan...but IF there was a devious plan and it amounts to more than Ivins being a nutjob acting on his own I doubt it was so much to make Bush a dictator than it was to help create a war which it did.

If you think about it logistically Anthrax is dangerous enough to make it scary in the sense that it could kill you...but it was also safe enough that it could be contained and had little risk for any kind of outbreak. So if it was intentionally used by Ivins or Ivins and others to scare up the masses it was a safe bet and it worked.
that it did...
everyone and their dog flipped sh*t when they saw things like guacamole on the street
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
the guy whose been accused and killed himself was working with anthrax...
But had no expertise in weaponizing it - ie: making it easier to spread by reducing the charges carried on its surface.

and anthrax is a pretty predictable bio-weapon so it'd make sense that they'd take vaccines
But why would the White House take vaccines BEFORE the anthrax threat emerged? They started at 9-11 - a full week BEFORE the first anthrax letters were mailed.

also why would they take vaccines if they were the ones doing it?
It suggests they KNEW the anthrax was on the loose. And either did not trust the people with it, or did not know their targets.
 

Oakleys_N_Zinka

Miki Dora status
Oct 7, 2005
4,809
1,247
113
Blakestah do you just wait for stuff to come out so you can believe in it? You are the definition of a fudge-tard.
 

piggydog

Michael Peterson status
Oct 17, 2004
2,321
0
0
at least blakestah can think for himself. I don't know what happened but I hope everybody is not stupid enough to believe everything that is spoon fed to you via the media or government.

He brings up some good points that have to make you go hmmmm. That's all, make whatever conclusions you want but at least give it some thought.

The thing I do know for a fact is the US went to war on intel that was false. I'd have to think any administration would have to be 1000% sure that the reason you went to war was indeed a fact. This has to be one of, if not the biggest f$%kup in history
 

Bullnutts

Gerry Lopez status
Nov 14, 2004
992
231
43
Hawai'i
many things are debateable but did the White House send snthrax? Hell no. If people put forth as much as effort into helping out their local communities as they do thinklng up this horse sh*t, we would all live in a better place. Now pass me another brew, bu!!
 

Kento

Duke status
Jan 11, 2002
68,691
20,903
113
The Bar
many things are debateable but did the White House send snthrax? Hell no. If people put forth as much as effort into helping out their local communities as they do thinklng up this horse sh*t, we would all live in a better place. Now pass me another brew, bu!!
Maybe they got the care packages mixed up while sending coke through the mail. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
many things are debateable but did the White House send snthrax? Hell no. If people put forth as much as effort into helping out their local communities as they do thinklng up this horse sh*t, we would all live in a better place. Now pass me another brew, bu!!
Here are what are currently regarded as "facts"

Anthrax letters were mailed to news sources, and to two Democratic US Senators.

These letters contained notes mimicking an Islamic terrorist.

These letters were mailed from NJ.

Initially, the White House denied the anthrax was from Iraq or Afghanistan. Then, ABC news reported having multiple sources claiming the US Senate anthrax contained bentonite, and that the Iraqis were the only known source that used bentonite in this manner. From that point on, John McCain, George Bush, and Dick Cheney, embarked on a press mission of linking the anthrax to the Iraqis.

It is now known that there was NEVER any analysis finding bentonite in the anthrax. It is now known that the anthrax came from Fort Detrick (via strain analysis). It is now known that the White House and their staff was taking large doses of Cipro a FULL WEEK BEFORE any anthrax appeared to the public.

So the White House KNEW the anthrax was on the loose. They knew because it came from a military facility, and George Bush is the leader of the US military. Without evidence, they blamed the scapegoat that they wanted to use the US military to attack.

John McCain, current presidential candidate, was an integral player in these plans.

The long and the short of it is that John McCain has no problem fabricating evidence and using it to convince the US public that war is a good idea. He has shielded oversight of this evidence by claiming that he cannot reveal the evidence itself due to national security. He can only reveal the guilty party. Guilty without proof.

In other words, if you vote for John McCain, you can expect four more years of deceit similar to that from Bush and Cheney. He will use the military for his own purposes even when they conflict with what is best for America, and he will convince the public to support him by trumping up terror charges using blatantly falsified evidence, and claim that he cannot reveal the actual evidence to you for reasons of national security.

Completely failing in compliance with the oath of office.

Just as Bush and Cheney have done.
 

JJR

Duke status
Mar 6, 2003
21,629
0
0
Cyclist hell
So when are you moving? Could I suggest a two bedroom in beautiful Kabul? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/loser.gif" alt="" />

<table width="640" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td><embed src="http://www.dailyhaha.com/_flash/alqaeda.swf" quality='best' style="width:640px; height:480px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></td> </tr><tr><td><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td>more <a href="http://www.dailyhaha.com/flash.htm">Flash Games</a></td><td><div align="right"><a href="http://www.dailyhaha.com">DailyHaHa</a></div></td ></tr></table></td></tr></table>

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/computer.gif" alt="" />