PDA

View Full Version : Ivins Anthrax Case Another Black Eye for Networks



Qtec
08-12-2008, 10:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">pecial Report:
Ivins Anthrax Case Another Black Eye for Network News

While cable news dutifully devotes nonstop coverage to the latest random criminal cases -- kidnappings, shootouts, murderous love triangles, car chases -- it's telling when a supposed break in one of the biggest manhunts in FBI history, for a terrorist who murdered and poisoned multiple American citizens with anthrax, takes a backseat to nearly every other story. That is, if it's mentioned at all.

Even as details, leaks and a burgeoning list of questions bubbled to the surface last week, demanding serious scrutiny, the big three broadcast networks were equally blasé. Some nights skipping mention of the unfolding story altogether, as did last Tuesday's editions of CBS Evening News and ABC World News (though both that evening reported the eminently newsworthy story of a thrill-seeking English couple who married while being strapped outside separate airplanes). On the same night, Brian Williams afforded 39 precious seconds to the anthrax investigation on NBC Nightly News.

In covering one of the most historic criminal investigations in our nation's history, the worst bioterrorism attack on U.S. soil, the overall tenor and quality of network reporting (as well as much of the work in mainstream print media) has been nothing short of disgraceful. A dearth of circumspection and paucity of competent investigative work that mirrors the most feckless moments of the last eight years. This coverage, delivered in an Orwellian bubble world where our brazenly criminal administration still earns the benefit of the doubt, is all the more indefensible when you factor in the reality this is a Bush administration investigation, one which had already dragged on for almost seven years, during which time the government was forced to cough up nearly $6 million to settle with a previously wrongly accused man whose reputation and personal life it had destroyed.





But the FBI and DOJ wanted this case closed. Now. And in one of the most important criminal investigations in our nation's history, for the deadliest bioterrorism attack on U.S. soil -- which our government, with help from Brian Ross and ABC News' curiously sourced false reporting, initially used to build support for invading Iraq -- the networks (Olbermann's Countdown coverage notwithstanding) have thus far refused to substantively question this historically corrupt government's circumstantial case against a dead man who will never have his day in court.

By the way, have you heard that John Edwards cheated on his wife? </div></div> read on (http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2008/08/special-repor-2.html)

Q

Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 10:37 AM
Thanks Q,

I hope we get to the bottom of this, and the forged Niger documents, (Ledeen's fingerprints all over that) because these particular illegal activities have a long life for indictments.

Qtec
08-13-2008, 05:42 AM
The mainstream press ignores this just as the Reps and the Cons on this forum do. Why don't they want to know the truth.
I find the lack of concern from these people amazing. These are the same people who go on and on about Nat Sec and protecting the country at all costs, using any measures.
The fact that the anthrax that was used to terrorize Americans came from a US top security lab doesn't seem to worry them.
I reckon that if the first guy who the FBI pursued had also killed himself, then they would also have pronounced the case as closed.

Update. FBI story shows flaws.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's the answer to this?

A commenter here on Friday noted what appears to be a rather glaring contradiction in the case against Bruce Ivins. In response to criticisms that the FBI's case contains no evidence placing Ivins in New Jersey, where the anthrax letters were sent, The Washington Post published an article -- headlined "New Details Show Anthrax Suspect Away On Key Day" -- which, based on leaks from "government sources briefed on the case," purported to describe evidence about Bruce Ivins' whereabouts on September 17 -- the day the FBI says the first batch of anthrax letters were mailed from a Princeton, New Jersey mailbox. The Post reported:

A partial log of Ivins's work hours shows that he worked late in the lab on the evening of Sunday, Sept. 16, signing out at 9:52 p.m. after two hours and 15 minutes. The next morning, the sources said, he showed up as usual but stayed only briefly before taking leave hours. Authorities assume that he drove to Princeton immediately after that, dropping the letters in a mailbox on a well-traveled street across from the university campus. Ivins would have had to have left quickly to return for an appointment in the early evening, about 4 or 5 p.m.

The fastest one can drive from Frederick, Maryland to Princeton, New Jersey is 3 hours, which would mean that Ivins would have had to have dropped the anthrax letters in the New Jersey mailbox on September 17 by 1 p.m. or -- at the latest -- 2 p.m. in order to be able to attend a 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. meeting back at Ft. Detrick. But had he dropped the letters in the mailbox before 5:00 p.m. on September 17, the letters would have borne a September 17 postmark, rather than the September 18 postmark they bore (letters picked up from that Princeton mailbox before 5 p.m. bear the postmark from that day; letters picked up after 5 p.m. bear the postmark of the next day). That's why the Search Warrant Affidavit (.pdf) released by the FBI on Friday said this (page 8):

If the Post's reporting about Ivins' September 17 activities is accurate -- that he "return[ed to Fort Detrick] for an appointment in the early evening, about 4 or 5 p.m." -- then that would constitute an alibi, not, as the Post breathlessly described it, "a key clue into how he could have pulled off an elaborate crime," since any letter he mailed that way would have a September 17 -- not a September 18 -- postmark. Just compare the FBI's own definition of "window of opportunity" to its September 17 timeline for Ivins to see how glaring that contradiction is.

In theory (and there is no evidence for this at all), Ivins could have left Fort Detrick that night after work and driven to New Jersey, but then the leaked information reported by the Post about Ivins' September 17 morning "administrative leave" would be completely irrelevant, and according to the Post, that isn't what the FBI believes occurred ("Authorities assume that he drove to Princeton immediately after" he took administrative leave in the morning). The FBI's theory as to how and when Ivins traveled to New Jersey on September 17 and mailed the letters is simply impossible, given the statement in their own Probable Cause Affidavit as to "the window of opportunity" the anthrax attacker had to mail the letters in order to have them bear a September 18 postmark. Marcy Wheeler and Larisa Alexandrovna have now noted the same discrepancy. That is a pretty enormous contradiction in the FBI's case.

* * * * * </div></div>

Q

Qtec
08-13-2008, 08:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The investigators fail to address another underlying problem with their anthrax match: that Dr. Ivins was an investigator in the case before he was a suspect. After the anthrax attack, Dr. Ivins himself worked directly with the evidence. The F.B.I. asked Dr. Ivins to help them with the forensics in the case by analyzing the contents of suspicious letters. And he did so for years, until the authorities began to suspect that the anthrax spores used in the mailings might have originated from his lab.

Dr. Ivins, for instance, was asked to analyze the anthrax envelope that was sent to Mr. Daschle’s office on Oct. 9, 2001. When his team analyzed the powder, they found it to be a startlingly refined weapons-grade anthrax spore preparation, the likes of which had never been seen before by personnel at Fort Detrick. </div></div>

op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10andrews.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

If the 'startlingly refined weapons-grade anthrax spore preparation' was not produced at Ft Detrick, where did it come from?
Who has the facilities to make this stuff?

Q

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 09:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The mainstream press ignores this just as the Reps and the Cons on this forum do. Why don't they want to know the truth. <span style="color: #000066">Truth is their enemy. They aren't at all interested in the truth, they get their talking points, and that's as far as they go. </span>
I find the lack of concern from these people amazing. These are the same people who go on and on about Nat Sec and protecting the country at all costs, using any measures. <span style="color: #000066">Yeah, talk, I think it used to be cheap, this time it's cost the country three trillion dollars, and our troops left in a slaughter by and incompetent decider.</span>
The fact that the anthrax that was used to terrorize Americans came from a US top security lab <span style="color: #000066">And mailed to a Democrat. </span> doesn't seem to worry them.
I reckon that if the first guy who the FBI pursued had also killed himself, then they would also have pronounced the case as closed.

Update. FBI story shows flaws.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Definately points to yet another Republican cover up to hide illegal activity. It seems that the dna story that supposedly linked his strain of anthrax to the particular strain used for the attack, is also bogus.

This whole things stinks to high heaven, but it's pretty clear who had the motive, at that time, for revving up the whole biological warfare threats, isn't it?</span>

eg8r
08-13-2008, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The mainstream press ignores this just as the Reps and the Cons on this forum do. Why don't they want to know the truth.
</div></div>Can you link us to the post that says we don't want to hear the truth? I can certainly link you to many that say we don't want to hear from you. Don't you think the lack of responses to your threads are usually because no one really cares about your biased version of what is happening.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-13-2008, 10:47 AM
I find Q's posts very informative. He surely doesn't post solely for the purpose of irritating people, and throwing around
insults, like SOME of our posters.

Many of his posts are posts that don't require answers, or include questions, they're just good information, and do not require responses.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
08-13-2008, 11:15 AM
[quote=eg8r]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Can you link us to the post that says we don't want to hear the truth? </div></div>

EVERY post you have ever made about V Plame shows you don't want to know the truth.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can certainly link you to many that say we don't want to hear from you.</div></div>

DITTO.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Don't you think the lack of responses to your threads are usually because no one really cares about your biased version of what is happening.

eg8r </div></div>

I am not the one who is biased. YOU have already made your mind up and to hell with the facts or the truth.

All I have done is point out the inconsistencies in the FBI case and backed that up with links and facts. Sure, I think this smells to high heaven but thats because of the facts, not the gossip and the propaganda that rebounds around the RW media and RW blogs disguised a fact.

Q

eg8r
08-13-2008, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">EVERY post you have ever made about V Plame shows you don't want to know the truth. </div></div>I am just sitting waiting to see some of your "facts" actually mean something in court.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not the one who is biased.</div></div>And now you are a comedian. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif That was funny.

We don't care what you think it smells like and the responses to your thread show you. Are you looking for a thread where you have 100 people jumping up and down saying, "Go get em Q!"

eg8r

eg8r
08-13-2008, 11:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find Q's posts very informative. He surely doesn't post solely for the purpose of irritating people, </div></div>He doesn't post to irritate people. That is not what Q told Fran. Out of Q's very mouth he stated that is what he does here.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-13-2008, 06:38 PM
"He doesn't post to irritate people. That is not what Q told Fran. Out of Q's very mouth he stated that is what he does here."
Right, he's irritating them with the news

What do you find so irritating about the quoted stories, links, that he posts?
Even if I disagreed with them, I'd want to read them, and get the "other side" of the story.
So, your story is that he cites news stories, that usually go against this admin.....just to piss people off ???
Makes you wonder then...what were the author's intentions???
I do remember that Gayle referenced a few "tell all" books written by former insiders...and the knock was....they just did it for the $$$...as though that alone disqualified the content.
Nobody here wastes their time trying to piss you off, but we do waste our time trying to reason with you....e.g. Plamegate,

eg8r
08-14-2008, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What do you find so irritating about the quoted stories, links, that he posts?</div></div>I don't think my post says I find him irritating. He mentioned to Fran when he was here in the States that he only posts because he wants to irritate, not discuss.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do remember that Gayle referenced a few "tell all" books written by former insiders...and the knock was....they just did it for the $$$...as though that alone disqualified the content.</div></div>Doing it for the $$$ can certainly disqualify the content if the content is not true or embellished to help sell the book.

eg8r

mike60
08-15-2008, 12:46 AM
Really Ed it would be hard to fault Q for his methods. Apparently he's quite effective. Anyway, as much as i goof on you guy's i really do welcome your views. We all are just
reflections of each other, made opposite by the mirror of politics. Hell we might even need each other to give us a reason to explain ourselves to ourselves. Thanks buddy.

miguel