Just a glance at the amazing evidence against Bruce Ivins collected by the FBI raises two big questions: How come this guy was working for the government so long? And, why didn't someone dime him out, say a family member like David Kaczynski?
Ivins was what we used to call a "whack job" when I started working in newspapers 30 years ago–and when we tried to dignify our judgment in print, a "paranoid schizophrenic." Now we say, He was in a lot of pain. And we can only guess what his poor family went through. But putting my news vulture hat back on, the most electrifying thing about the story is his obsession with Kappa Kappa Gamma, the elite sorority, about which he engaged in edit wars on Wikipedia.
Oh when a Kappa girl goes down the street,
She feels a hundred per from head to feet!
My mother-in-law, a Kappa Kappa Gamma, taught me that song (had to drop that; I have social issues of my own).
Ivins seems to have driven many hours to deliver a "gift" to the KKG house in Princeton. And here is some doggerel that the mad scientist wrote:
Hickory dickory Doc– Doc Bruce ran up the clock
But something then happened in a very strange rhythm
His other self went and exchanged places with him
So now please guess who
Is conversing with you?
Good question. I return to my first two questions. The family obviously knew that Ivins was deeply troubled. So did co-workers. I'm betting they were in denial. I guess David Kaczynski must be regarded as the noble exception, and even he experienced a couple years denial, as I recall. As for Ivins's persistence in the government, there were surely murmurs. Back in 2001 someone referred to him as a "basket case." It is further evidence of the lethal dangers of bureaucracy, the same bureaucracy that suffocated the intelligence about Arabs who were going to flight school prior to 9/11. Why not a war on bureaucracy?
P.S. Steve Sailer gets at a similar point here, sharperly.
.
From Wikipedia:
'Ivins's death leaves unanswered two puzzles. Scientists familiar with germ warfare said there was no evidence that Dr. Ivins had the skills to turn anthrax into an inhalable powder. According to Dr. Alan Zelicoff who aided the F.B.I. investigation, "I don’t think a vaccine specialist could do it … This is aerosol physics, not biology. The other problem is the lack of a motive."'
Think about the timeline — the first anthrax letters were mailed on 18 Sep 2001, one week after the 9/11 attacks. It hardly seems credible that anyone could have whipped up this complicated exercise in 'aerosol physics' in the space of a week.
On the other hand, are we to suppose that Ivins had put the fruits of his painstaking efforts on the shelf, to await a once-in-a-lifetime event such as 9/11 to make his move?
Either way, it's a little strange. Some of the FBI 'evidence' is bizarre, too. They say that Ivins took long drives, told his wife he was at the lab, then rolled back his odometer. HUH? Have you ever tried to "roll back" a contemporary electronic odometer? This is not the 1960s, when you could unscrew a mechanical cable from the transmission, chuck it into your power drill, and "reel in the miles." WTF?
Point being, Ivins certainly fits a well-worn profile of the "lone nut" implicated in numerous assassinations and attacks. But there's a chicken-and-egg question here. Do eccentric "lone nuts" plan and pull off complex attacks? Or do complex attacks get pinned, ex post facto, on "lone nuts" who happened to be in the vicinity? I don't know; just asking.
In Ivins's case, I lean toward the notion that he was just an eccentric KKG panty-sniffer who got in way over his pointed little head. Conveniently-timed suicides are also part of the profile (as in Dr. David Kelly, etc.).
Perhaps the FBI should be checking for "links" between KKG and Skull 'n Bones, huh?
Your comments are absurd. Read Greenwald or Raimondo (Antiwar.com) for the real story, Phil. Ivins was a patsy, and the FBI's case rests on flimsy circumstantial evidence. Dr. Philip Zack is a figure of much greater interest, caught on video in 1992 being let into Ft. Detrick by his Camel Club colleague, Rippy. (He had been fired because of his participation in a group, the "Camel Club," that harrassed an Egyptian-born scientist, Assad, with obscene poems and dildo-laden camel figurine).
Why would Ivins have motive to write the letters implicating moslems? Who wrote the letter trying to frame Dr. Assad? Why won't the FBI release the contents of that letter, despite textual analysis (by the same guy who pegged Joe Klein as the author of 'Primary Colors') showing an exact match with a female officer at Ft. Detrick. Was the officer Marianne Rippy, Zack's Camel Club colleague?
The FBI offered Ivin's son 2.5 million to implicate his dad. Sounds like a real strong case. I wonder what they paid estranged brother Tom Ivins, who on audio sounds like he's mentally damaged?
Why did Barbara Rosenberg and Nicholas Kristoff urge on the Hatfill investigation (who just got paid 6 million in his lawsuit against the FBI)?
Who were the government sources ABC relied on to try to link Iraq to the anthrax attacks? Why won't ABC divulge the names of these liars?
What government source told Richard Cohen to take Cipro? Why won't Cohen divulge the name? On what ethical grounds did he withhold the information from the public?
Don't be so naive, Phil. There are WAY too many unanswered questions. It discredits all the other fine work you do. The anthrax attack, directed at Daschle and Leahy, preventing meaningful debate on the Patriot Act, was too useful to the Bushites to be dismissed by this flimsy farrago of lies and innuendo.
Weiss: ‘Ivins was what we used to call a "whack job" when I started working in newspapers 30 years ago–and when we tried to dignify our judgment in print, a "paranoid schizophrenic.” ’
Of course he was nuts. I mean, anybody who would write something like — 'By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."' — and who believes all the other Zionist ideology is clearly a "whack job." Problem is, there are still millions of Zionist whack jobs running amok. And most of them are better at concealing their mental illness than was Ivins.
Interested readers should consult anthrax expert Meryl Nass's journal:
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/08/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html
Glenn Greenwald: "I highly recommend that her analysis be read in its entirety, particularly by any journalists who are preparing to opine on what took place today."
Careful what you write, Phil. This post makes you look WAY too eager.
From today's WaPo article:
"They did not try to match his crabbed handwriting with the distinctive block print on the 2001 letters." ("They" is the FBI.)
Why not? Why didn't they ask Ivins to write out in block letters text like that on the envelopes and in the letters? An earlier article said that his lawyer said that he was cooperating fully with the government.
Are there relevant samples of his handwriting around even now? There are said to be unmailed letters extant. I'd like a handwriting expert's testimony.
double what oarwell said at 1049.
click over to xymphora and read.
Oarwell is right. Could Ivins = Sirhan = Oswald? Who knows? One thing I do know is that we have been offically lied to as a matter of course for 7 years, so I don't see why we ought to just swallow the bait now. Trust is preferable to cynicism, but not always possible with Official Stories.
Kelly is a different kettle of fish to Ivins. He wasn't a patsy; he was a clear and present danger, capable of derailing the train to war. His media contact was Judith Miller.
Sometimes it's hard to see the woods for the trees, or the clusters for all the aspen buds, but the patterns are there. Seeing them requires acute vision, but more importantly, 'the power of facing unpleasant facts'.
Of course it's possible this Ivins was a lone nut, but it's a brave, and naive observer who simply accepts the official attribution of blame to him in the circumstances Raimondo and Greenwald describe.
Raimondo posits a possible Bush Crime Family link, but it sounds more like a Doug Feith Special Plan to me. In the absence of trust in government and it's agencies, including the media, and without answers to the questions people like Raimondo and Greenwald raise, this is the sort of 'wild' speculation you will hear. It would be nice to hear some of it outside the blogosphere.
I view all the posts above as a trend and the conclusion points to somebody like Dough Feith, as Glen Condell says–I've already said as much earlier today on Phil's blog. But I doubt this will be brought up outside the blogosphere.