A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack by Glenn Greenwald

hyperlinks at the original:
FRIDAY, NOV 27, 2009 03:28 PST
A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack
Britain is currently engulfed by a probing, controversial investigation into how their Government came to support the invasion of Iraq, replete with evidence that much of what was said at the time by both British and American officials was knowingly false, particularly regarding the unequivocal intention of the Bush administration to attack Iraq for months when they were pretending otherwise. Yesterday, the British Ambassador to the U.S. in 2002 and 2003, Sir Christopher Meyer (who favored the war), testified before the investigative tribunal and said this:

Meyer said attitudes towards Iraq were influenced to an extent not appreciated by him at the time by the anthrax scare in the US soon after 9/11. US senators and others were sent anthrax spores in the post, a crime that led to the death of five people, prompting policymakers to claim links to Saddam Hussein. . . .

On 9/11 Condoleezza Rice, then the US national security adviser, told Meyer she was in "no doubt: it was an al-Qaida operation" . . . It seemed that Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy, argued for retaliation to include Iraq, Meyer said. . . .

But the anthrax scare had "steamed up" policy makers in Bush's administration and helped swing attitudes against Saddam, who the administration believed had been the last person to use anthrax.

I've written many times before about how the anthrax attack played at least as large of a role as the 9/11 attack itself, if not larger, in creating the general climate of fear that prevailed for years in the U.S. and specifically how the anthrax episode was exploited by leading media and political figures to gin up intense hostility towards Iraq (a few others have argued the same). That's why it's so striking how we've collectively flushed this terrorist attack down the memory hole as though it doesn't exist. When Dana Perino boasted this week on Fox News that "we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term," most of the resulting derision focused on the 9/11 attack while ignoring -- as always -- the anthrax attack.

What makes this particularly significant is that the anthrax attack is unresolved and uninvestigated. The FBI claimed last year that it had identified the sole perpetrator, Bruce Ivins, but because Ivins is dead, they never had the opportunity -- or the obligation -- to prove their accusations in any meaningful tribunal. The case against Ivins is so riddled with logical and evidentiary holes that it has generated extreme doubts not merely from typical government skeptics but from the most mainstream, establishment-revering, and ideologically disparate sources. Just consider some of the outlets and individuals who have stated unequivocally that the FBI's case against Ivinis is unpersausive and requires a meaningful investigation: The Washington Post Editorial Page; The New York Times Editorial Page; The Wall St. Journal Editorial Page; the science journal Nature; Senators Pat Leahy, Arlen Specter and Charles Grassley; physicist and Congressman Rush Holt, whose New Jersey district was where the anthrax letters were sent; Dr. Alan Pearson, Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; and a vast array of scientific and legal experts in the field.

Here we have one of the most consequential political events of the last decade at least -- a lethal biological terrorist attack aimed at key U.S. Senators and media figures, which even the FBI claims originated from a U.S. military lab. The then-British Ambassador to the U.S. is now testifying what has long been clear: that this episode played a huge role in enabling the attack on Iraq. Even our leading mainstream, establishment-serving media outlets -- and countless bio-weapons experts -- believe that we do not have real answers about who perpetrated this attack and how. And there is little apparent interest in investigating in order to find out. Evidently, this is just another one of those things that we'll relegate to "the irrelevant past," and therefore deem it unworthy of attention from our future-gazing, always-distracted minds.

Sensible comment

Many of the comments to Greenwald's column indicate that Salon readers have been well-trained by the major media, in that they feel impelled to say how 'loath' they are to engage in 'conspiracy theory.' But here is an excerpt from one comment which--as with the 9/11 truth movement--wants no part of the 'let's look forward' meme that has been promoted since Obama's election:

'Herein..is the supremely fatal danger in Obama's refusal to 'look backwards.'
We are no more prepared for a terrorist attack now then we were back then; in our refusal to examine our assumptions about 9/11 and the anthrax scare, to collectively get together and say "wow we were so wrong about what exactly was going down with all that" we're ensuring that any future theoretical attack will instigate an identical, damaging hysteria in which the United States does everything except calmly and pragmatically address the situation.
There is an insidious political meme amongst the left that all we really need to know is that attacking Iraq was stupid. Once you agree about that there's no need to examine anything more about the decade following the Trade Center attacks.'


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Text-book doublethink

The second comment to Greenwald's piece:

"Given the massive media attention paid to proponents of far less convincing conspiracy theories (I use the term in a neutral sense in this case), you'd think people would be more willing to talk about this. Orly Taitz can run the media appearance gauntlet with "evidence" so sparse she has literally been mocked out of the court room by the presiding judge, but for some reason nobody seems to want to remember the anthrax scare, much less discuss it.

And I think given the recent history of birthers, truthers, global warming deniers, etc, the anthrax story will inevitably be lumped into that same category of highly politicized conspiracy movement, and will thus be met with prejudiced dismissal by the Serious and Moderate media.

I don't even know how one would go about getting the mainstream press to focus on this again, as they are the only entity even more willing than Obama to Look Forward (to the next Balloon Boy), Not Backward to a story about a seven-year-old event. Sure, there's a new angle to it, but it's an angle that would prove damning to over half of the current Washington power establishment. Anathema to mainstream press."

This otherwise rational skeptic dismisses "birthers,TRUTHERS, global warming deniers" as purveyors of nonsense whose rubbish will poison the well with regard to the anthrax attacks, yet fails to recognize that the corporate media and official story already admit that the anthrax letters comprised a FALSE-FLAG ATTACK LINKED TO "09-11-01", FRAMED MUSLIMS, CONTAINED MATERIAL FROM SECURE U.S. WEAPONS LABS, AND WERE USED TO PREPARE THE PUBLIC MIND FOR WAR.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Didn't they find out?

Didn't they find out that the anthrax was made right here in the good old USA? You bet they did so they shut up about it right away. The so-called Media dropped it like a hot potato. Just like building 7. I didn't know about building 7 until two years after the fact. Most Americans still don't know about it.