Saturday, August 02, 2008


If you thought like me at the time it happened that the post-9/11 anthrax scare was extremely fishy (as with so many other events of this whole era of the so-called 'war on terrorism'), then I thoroughly recommend this article. And considering what a huge story this was at the time, and one which arguably had even more serious consequences than 9/11 itself (i.e. a crucial part of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq), why the hell are these developments getting such scant news coverage? Especially in August when there's so little genuine news to report.


Thomas Bey William Bailey said...

Glenn Greenwald has been generally good lately for bringing up stories like this, and incidents of high-level hypocrisy that get 'scant news coverage': go back and read his vitriolic, refreshingly non-partisan broadsides against our current, er, presidential candidate of "hope" and his 'yes' vote for a Bush-backed bill which grants retroactive immunity to wiretapping telecom companies.

Anyway...his article does confirm my suspicions that this was one in a series of 'false flag' attacks, without which I wonder how the powers that be would ever find any broad public support for their regime, I mean, 'liberating' campaigns.

I'm certainly hoping that the public becomes more inured to this kind of thing as time goes on (see this idiocy from a few months ago with the huge U.S. naval ships being 'menaced' by a couple of pithy Iranian speedboats), but I won't exactly hold my breath.

William Bennett said...

I agree, Thomas - here we seem to get a tantalisingly close look at the mechanics of these types of shadowy operations. It is a murky and probably very messy complex world. There are some parallels in the case of Ivins with that of the death of UK government scientist David Kelly. Incidentally, regardless of his culpability, Ivins comes across as such a weirdo that it also makes you wonder about the kind of people who do these jobs.

WXXX said...

Well, the role of Judith Miller & the NYT in pimping the war on Saddam is well known, but Greenwald makes a good case that ABC news & Brian Ross ware perhaps even more disasterously potent... they layed the groundwork for this sort of fear & loathing, as it were.

It's a shame for Ross as he's done some fine work on occasion: the Jundallah story (CIA supporting al Qaeda allies' terrorism in Iran) and, of course, outing Mark Foley (pedophile legislator).

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Some further observations: