I was wrong...or was I?
It happens, way more often than I care to admit. But Bruce Ivins' suicide (you don't need links, it's everywhere by now) seems to conclusively indicate that it was he who terrorized my city with anthrax mailings immediately after 911. Instead of Saddam Hussein's operatives acting through the 911 terrrorists, as I have stoutly maintained for the past 7 years. I was wrong. That doesn't get posted here much, but I'll say it again just for dramatic effect: I was wrong.
In my meagre defense, I was 100% right about Stephen Hatfill, who for no reason that has ever been released to the press at any rate (though increasingly we cannot rely on the press to report anything of national interest or report it correctly) was persecuted--there is really no other word for it--by the FBI for those 7 years, to the extent of running over his foot with a car tire. I'm happy to report his innocence conclusively established.
However, questions remain. I never imagined I might agree with anything that Glenn Greenwald might write, but in his latest opinion piece he darkly hints that Ivins' death might not be all it seems, and that the entire incident might have been staged by our government--with the complicity of ABC News--as a pretext to go to war with Saddam. I rate this possibility slightly lower than that of Ivins being on Saddam's payroll (several US scientists have been), but it exists. The only reason I don't rush to type 'Ivins' "alleged" suicide' is after reflecting that while I am wrong about half the time, Greenwald's record is so far intact ;)
Unless, of course, he's right about this.
UPDATE II --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/02/AR200808...
The answer, as the Magic 8Ball would say, is unclear. Try again later. So far, however, the old 8Ball has been more forthcoming than the FBI.
UPDATE--
Apparently, I was wrong to admit to being wrong on this--or any other--issue. I won't do it again (not here at least), and I urge none of you to bother either. Why? Because as matters now stand, it seems to only bring out the worst in people. The 'how could you be so stupid' and 'you should do some soul-searching about your other beliefs' memes amount quite simply to taunting. They may not involve name-calling or overt mockery, but they are essentially the same thing. They involve little or no discussion of the actual topic. And this is an active discouragement to real communication and exchange of goodwill.
Imagine, for example, that down the road a year from now three conservative members of this site issue a diary saying they've been wrong about President Obama, and that he's turned out to be a remarkably fair-minded and uniting figure. Would they face the same sort of reaction? If so, should they even bother? What if a liberal commenter, flying for the first time with his beloved daughter, paused to reflect on how all the onerous security at airports suddenly struck him as a blessing? Should he then have scorn heaped on him? It seems to me this site has divided itself into two groups--not left and right--but between mature commenters who, whatever their love of argument, see their fellows here as real people, and immature ones who see these threads merely as a spectator sport like bear-baiting. Unfortunately the mods genuinely seem to see it as their mission here to maintain equivalency between these two groups.
I suggest no rules changes. IMHO there are already too many rules here. Rules that protect the jackals. But I foresee a very short tenure here for me and possibly a few other grouchy old bears who may tire of the yapping. I have been informed (obliquely) that I have been, in defending myself (with no complaining or whining to mods), in violation of the rules. I shall not repeat the offense. All I can say is that if this blogsite succeeded in attracting columnists like Hitchens and Greenwald (not that I'm comparing this trivial and flimsy post to those of either), and they made the effort to respond to their critics in kind, they would last about a week here as the rules are now constituted and enforced. Darwin or Creation, gentlemen--you can't have it both ways forever.
--
--
- Kierkegaard's blog
- Login or register to post comments
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789293570011775.html?mod=opinion_main...
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
)Those details about the aerosolization techniques have been out for a long time. This columnist has expressed doubts that any one scientist could have produced the Leahy anthrax, but as far as I know no actual bioweap experts are doubting that possibility. It takes enormous resources to research and improve these techniques; far fewer if the aim is just to follow established recipes.
As far as the DNA evidence, if this report is true it was pointing straight at Ivins.
Anonymously sourced, naturally, but supposedly the FBI will release the bulk of its findings this month, effectively throwing up its hand on the case. I wonder if those files will answer more questions than they raise.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And I'm sorry you took some churlish criticism for it. I don't think attacking another commenter's MySpace page was all that above-the-belt a response, but for the record I believe that the fact that it's nearly impossible in modern politics to publicly change one's view on anything without being pilloried like a transit groper is probably one of the deadliest forms of groupthink we have. Short of being born again, disowning a mistake is merely to leap into the fire of a bigger one.
So please, you received some cheap shots. But it was not a wasted gesture for that reason. Deep down you must know that the ability to change your beliefs based on facts -- rather than vice versa -- remains just as heroic today as it was during the "Age of Enlightenment." Hell, more so, in this age of resurgent orthodoxies and humorless literalism.
Also for the record, I too am astonished that anyone could have believed Saddam was behind the anthrax attacks once it was clear the Ames strain was involved. I'm also tempted -- and I tell you this in the same spirit of full disclosure that I assume prompted the diary -- to blame such a conclusion on partisan zeal, or deliberate shilling for the war, simple gullibility, listening to too much Limbaugh, or whatever other conservative sins I can imagine.
All of these knee jerk -- emphasis jerk on my part -- reactions are attractive I think because the last and likeliest option still out there is far more disturbing, leads to cognitive dissonance far more migraine inducing. Namely the possibility that we looked at the same body of facts and drew very different *equally valid* conclusions at the time. Why so scary? Because it implies the world's a lot bigger and more mutable than fancy britches intellects like ours can comprehend.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
)...that Bruce Ivins is the guilty party or that acted alone if he were the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks.
He could be as blameless as Stephen Hatfill was or, Richard Jewell for that matter.
People do odd things for entirely odd and indivudualistic reasons...the case against Ivins has yet been proven to my satisfaction.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )won't keep answers from coming out, if he had anything to hide.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )this suicide would have been 'proof' to the usual suspects (you know, the ones itching for war in Iraq) that he WASN'T to blame.
Black helicopters, scary government, etc. Remember the good old days before the DHS? Now to some this is proof he was to blame.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We gave it to him. Hence the problem with tracing it.
Yeah, criticizing the guy's Myspace page was a low blow. But as the result of Harley's diary I'd actually gone there, thinking he was a regular, and sampled some of his music. Never saw his nick again, except to come out of the woodwork to attack me gratuitously--hence the cheap shot back.
However, he took it in a good spirit that would have shamed me had he not started the 'soul-searching' nonsense. I'm not an administration official or an FBI investigator; soul-searching over which news organs I believe (and they were all plenty confused at the time) is an absurdity. Moreover, the crucible here in DC was intense--I had to have some of my own mail thrown away because it contained trace amounts of the anthrax. So rumors were flying everywhere locally and we felt more involved than most.
It's third-party fight-promoters who turn up to head every comment with 'Rules Violation' who, IMHO, should be banned. But that's your call, not mine ;)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But other forensic evidence, and the FBI leads, were also suggesting a domestic attack. "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX", "TAKE PENICILLIN NOW" written in the letters at least hinted that the intent was to scare rather than kill. Why would mass-attack terror operatives tip their hand so quickly, giving first responders a leg up on treatments? Also circumstantially, the fact that all the targets were identifiably "liberal" seemed a bit too inside baseball for al Qaeda or Saddam.
None of this pushed me over the edge to "inside job" conspiracy mongering, but to me it added up pretty quickly to a domestic attack (I wasn't sure though) -- so that I was extremely skeptical, even appalled in 2003 when AMERITHRAX was trotted out as a reason to invade Iraq. To me it was almost certainly a red herring, and I was more than content to let Hans Blix clear up the almost part.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But my memory is that I read in a number of places that Fort Detrick directly supplied the Ames strain to Iraq during their war with Iran. In any case, I'm no expert. But trusting Hans Blix on anything is way further than I'd be prepared to go ;)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Imported anthrax can't be *conclusively* ruled out even now, I don't believe, but the steadily accumulating evidence over the years has all pointed to a domestic origin at Fort Detrick. Like, nearly all the evidence points there, and there's no evidence suggesting an Iraqi or al Qaeda connection other than rumors and speculative innuendo circulated from Cheney's office.
What they did, basically, was to widen the healthy skepticism of scientists and investigators into a huge echoing chasm of insinuendo about Saddam's weapons program. Very distressing to those of us who suspect it was a deliberate attempt to derail AMERITHRAX into yet another fake casus belli.
Thing is, it never made much sense that Saddam would orchestrate such a penny ante attack. If it could be traced back to his labs and his agents, which is extremely likely, it would have gained him nothing but a full-scale UN-supported invasion. As he must have been fully aware. His weapons programs, such as they were, were being kept on the down low in case of future wars with Iran, etc.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The jackals post, yet still emerging from the wasteland of static, a few thoughtful voices are heard. Ever do the poets say it best.
Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.
The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.
From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
'I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,'
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the dead,
Who can speak for the dumb?
All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.
Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.
- Login or register to post comments
)You are right, yet given the circumstances you perhaps could be comprehending rather than righteous about it. The circumstances being a destructive and wasteful war. Many people dead, lives destroyed, for no good reason. This creates well-founded anger.
I've found that anger management is a valuable, but acquired skill.
Short version: Point out what you did, but cut these guys some slack. Be aware that some of us do value, highly, your admission to error. I certainly do. It's very hard and few people do it, ever, no matter how obvious it becomes. Humans are simply not wired for it. Worse, we are not even wired to appreciate people who admit they are wrong. This explains much of our trouble.
This said, what I find interesting about this piece of news is that if you consider the attacks to have been temporally coordinated (rather than merely coincidental), it puts the possible ultimate authorship of 9/11 itself in a new light. Though I don't currently believe the administration or elements connected to it were involved in planning the attack, it would not knock me off my chair if we ever found out otherwise.
--Of course not!
- Login or register to post comments
)in the decision to go to war. I do agree that it was one of a number of reasons that led a lot of people, myself included, to support it. However, what you and a number of other people here seem to think is that in admitting I'm wrong on one issue that i should then proceed to reverse myself on a checklist of other issues, related or otherwise.
Maybe that accounts for the churlishness of some the responses.
I will repeat--my update concerns a principle. If in a year Brooks, Sulla, and Vint--to create a wild example--reverse themselves on Obama, should they then be excoriated because they don't immediately start juicing alfalfa grass and switch their party registration to Democrat?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )what you and a number of other people here seem to think is that in admitting I'm wrong on one issue that i should then proceed to reverse myself on a checklist of other issues
Um, no. I don't believe I said that. I mentioned it could be seen to put 9/11 in a new light. Hardly a request that you reverse yourself on a "whole range" of issues.
Nobody who changes position should be excoriated for any reason. I think you could have been treated better, but excoriated is a bit strong. But I do hear you, I've been through this. You expect people to give you some recognition or express happiness that you came around, but few do.
Like I said, blame the wiring. There was probably little evolutionary advantage in changing one's position, or respecting those who do. In fact I suspect the opposite is true. Tribes value loyalty, not introspection.
--Of course not!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the test is in what the methodology rules out.
In this case, if our practice was reversed, there'd be an equally plausible selection advantage story to explain why we praise changing one's mind.
e.g. we'd say that superior truth-updating in light of new information facilitated survival, where this flexibility was valued by our tribal ancestors b/c they were better able to cope in a dynamic environment.
It's a problem for an explanatory strategy if it explains inconsistent data w. equal plausibility.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Why would a group of men like us, better-educated and better-off than the norm, seek instantly to divide ourselves into tribes? To me this virtual, and very artificial, division must surely have something to do with the frustrations of real life.
My position on this blog is and always has been: America first. I'm a genuine centrist who sees plenty of worth in the arguments of both opposing 'tribes'--and I'm all too aware that this often puts people like me in the firing line, since I also often disagree with both camps. But I think that, just as in the US Senate, the faultlines of partisanship here don't always remain inviolate--I have close relations with and value the friendship of several people here whose views are not only different from my own but diametrically opposed to each other's. And I have no doubt that's the case for you as well ;)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Edit:
Perhaps you should explain some more. And justify the logical conclusion that that means Americans, first, too, presumably.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )regardless of their race, religion, or political views. I find that a very coherent worldview, whether or not it's morally fashionable, politically correct, or indeed Christian.
But since I'm none of the above, I am indifferent to the opinions of others in the matter. I trust you have a similar loyalty somewhere. If not, I invite you to immigrate.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Or more precisely, my people, right or wrong?
Isn't that at least a wee bit incoherent? Especially for a nation of immigrants?
I have a fable for you if you are interested.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for you to grasp with economy. I think what you mean to write is that you dislike the idea. As for our being a nation of immigrants:
A. A common love of America as a political idea as well as a patria is all that binds us together--we have no shared traditional culture, ethnic identity, or often even language.
B. To say I'm patriotic is not to say I'm a xenophobe; quite the reverse--loyalists to the true ideals of America must embrace the greatest quilt of group origins the world has ever known.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )rather than necessarily go so far as to say that I dislike it. George Mikes puts in elegantly when he says the world is a gigantic Siklos.
As for Americans as a political idea - well, I know a few emigres. And my experience is their need to emigrate is mostly more economic than political.
A patriot and not a xenophobe would seem to be incompatible, on the face of it. Hence my point about coherence. It sounds more like your particular tribe is the "loyalists to the true ideals of America". Ergo, that group must also be in a considerable majority, because you cannot very well be patriotic about a minority. Which sounds mythical because while you could be reasonably convinced about your friends, relatives, or even forvm members sharing this ideals I'd find it hard to convince myself that you could really know that much about your fellows whom you do not personally know.
Survey Monkey would probably show that 95% of American forvmites share you loyalty to that particular tribe - a guess of course, nothing more.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Proof is that it does not aid in making any actual decisions whatsoever.
In terms of domestic policy, putting America first is hopelessly redundant: every known actor is either flogging their vision of what's good for the country, or fighting for special interests against other special interests. Would 'America First' require an ethic of sacrifice, so that you should give up your Social Security payments and voluntarily maximize your tax withholding? Or is it merely a cudgel for accusing other special interests of being insufficiently pro-American? Does 'America First' mean America should continually improve, or that it should stay exactly as it is? Because at first, America was quite different than it is now. But paradoxically, those who fight to improve America are often greeted as...anti-American.
With foreign policy, at least there are identifiable non-American interests at stake. But even so, run it through several test cases. Energy policy. Does 'America First' mean the oil-producing countries should be slave societies, netting us the cheapest possible energy we can squeeze out of foreign hides? But enriching autocracies would seem to work *against* American interests in the long run. Should the entire world be in chains except the part that happens to lie within our polity? Allies. Clearly it is within our interest to be able to act in concert with other nations. Just as clearly, other nations will go along only if something's in it for them, and so we're forced to compromise continually, giving up part of what we want to get other things we want. Does America First help to draw those lines? Not at all. Enemies & War. Good war policy works like this: destroy the enemy's ability to wage war against you, then transform the enemy into an asset, even an ally. Does America First offer any guidance as to how to bring these twin goals about? No, it doesn't.
America First implies that there are people involved in the American political process who do *not* put America First. If it didn't, it would go without saying. Who exactly are these people? What exactly is their priority, if not America? How can you tell?
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )on this site in particular. Not of foreign policy. In point of fact 'America First' was first employed by pro-German groups funded by people like Henry Ford to keep the US out of WWII. Hence my use of the term was meant to be ironic.
I repeat, my 'tribe' is my fellow-Americans. Make of that what you will.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )or just the ones who agree with your politics?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you've ever lived overseas for any length of time, you'll know exactly what I mean.
I doubt there's anyone in the world who precisely shares my politics.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that your personal allegiance to your fellow-Muslims or fellow-Hindus, for example (whichever the case), transcended that of any other boundaries or distinctions for you, I would regard that statement with repect. Why do you have such trouble with my allegiance? The notion of a patria as a non-religious entity is in fact quite a recent one; the Athenians revered Athena, the Romans Roma. London was built on a hill below which the head of the god Lud was buried. Even during the French Revolution, the atheist Girondins made a local goddess of Liberte. Why should I not have a similar mystical feeling about Goddess America?
Respect, as Ali G would say, respect.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It seems like the site consists of those who believe themselves to be the "mature commenters" (ironically the ones who seem to childishly go for straight the jugular most of the time), and those who won't bother with such games.
Bill was incredulous that you actually believed in the propaganda; trouscaillon phrased the same in a more biting way. That seems to be the entire basis for the ensuing breakdown in the thread. The "soul searching" comment was part of that mini flamefest, so it's not worth discussing.
Those two "how could you be so stupid" comments probably come out of frustration from years of the administration's misused power that ensued from so many people believing in stories like this. It's a similar reaction to those that people had when Hitchens came out saying that, oh, sorry, being drowned by other people actually is torture -- after being drowned for a minute himself, after advocating for and playing a part in enabling those same practices.
It just seems that "oops" isn't quite enough, since that kind of reaction indicates that the person will probably go along with some other power-grabbing propagandist later, all the while calling everyone else a fool. After all, those people speaking in opposition of the means-to-an-end du jour are just immature, yapping jackals.
- Login or register to post comments
)I wouldn't have mentally included you in the latter group--and I'm deeply sorry you seem to identify with it.
"Oops" is enough at this point, because the truth of the matter is simply not known--anyone outside the most arcane of administration or FBI circles who believes they know more for certain than you or I do in this matter is merely the equivalent of a 911 'truther'.
My update was an attempt to make a larger point--if you genuinely believe (and I don't think you do) that every time someone on this site owns up publicly to being in the wrong on an issue they should then be mocked or pilloried, then I feel sorry for you.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I believe the appellation that has proved most popular with those who held the line despite all the abuse heaped on them over the years is 'dirty f*****g hippies', or DFH for short.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )before you likely were born, it's not a name I'd apply to anyone.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Seems to me you haven't learned your lesson, K. You're still jumping to conclusions.
As far as the Greenwald article goes, it's certainly worth asking who gave ABC News the bentonite "leak", and why. It's further worth asking who told Richard Cohen to take Cipro. Those aren't "dark hints" but legitimate, necessary, and possibly urgent questions.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
)The more I read about this guy, the less likely it seems. But historians have to accept something as the truth, and at the moment this seems to fit the 'three-source' rule best.
One can't construct a workable worldview based entirely on conspiracy theories, however (as in this case) more logical they may seem than the accepted facts in the case.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But historians have to accept something as the truth
I don't agree with this. Official historians tied to a given regime need a single version of the truth. Real historians sprinkle their writings with alternative explanations whenever facts aren't conclusive.
And in a case like this, having three sources doesn't conclude squat.
--Of course not!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What are these accepted facts? Now that they don't include Saddam or his henchmen.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Do you have a cite on your government/ABC news conspiracy? I think you (or Greenwald) are conflating something here. IIRC, the Australian Broadcasting Company quoted someone as saying the Senate spores were "weaponized" but I don't recall anything that supports things as asserted.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
)http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Gawd, I forgot how painful it is to read Greenwald.
It appears he's trying really hard to ignore both Occam's and Hanlon's razors.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Where are the factual errors in this?
and this
If someone were to believe that there was bentonite in the "weaponized" anthrax and if someone were to believe 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." then to link Saddam with the anthrax is both plausible and reasonable.
So, who told ABC News about the apparently non-existent bentonite?
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Who said anything about factual errors?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That there was bentonite in the test samples, or that there was such testing at the Fort Detrick facility (which, by the way, was where Ivins worked). It is now understood that there was never such a test and never any bentonite found.
The point of the false leak was to fraudulently link Saddam to the anthrax terrorism, when in fact there was no basis for such a link. ABC attributed the story to various government officials -- do you think they made up the whole thing as opposed to the repeating lies from the referenced government officials?
Yes, it may have been gossip, but very specific gossip with the specific purpose of falsely linking Saddam to the anthrax terrorism. Someone invented a spread a very specific lie for a nefarious purpose.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )violated by saying ABC News has some explaining to do?
As for Hanlon's Razor, to assert that stupidity caused ABC News to fabricate a link between the anthrax and Saddam would seem to violate Occam's Razor rather egregiously.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The conspiracy corollary to Hanlon would be: never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
The simplest explanation is a network in a rush to beat the other networks did what they always do – repeat gossip, guesses, and speculation as a 'fact' from 'unnamed sources'.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What if your simplest explanation is incorrect? Do you leave any room in your mind for that possibility?
Anyone with any interest in learning more about these attacks should be demanding ABC to reveal more about its sources, as Greenwald notes. Maybe then we can dismiss the conspiracy angle. Absent the facts, these rules of thumb you bandy about will lead you into error.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ABC reported that it sourced the allegations to various government officials. It is far more plausible to believe that someone in government was plying them with the false stories about bentonite and testing at the Army bioweapons facility.
Given the revelations about Ivins, it is pretty remarkable that the false story reorted by ABC linking anthrax to Iraq was allegedly based on a testing done at Ivins' facility.
I would agree that the first assumption should rule out a conspiracy, but remarkable coincidences, while possibliy due to chance, are very unlikely, and at that point some form of conspiracy becomes more plausible. Sometimes it is such circumstancial evidence that is more compeling than anything.
What remains unknown is whether Ivins had any link to the perpetrators of the phony story fed to ABC. It is entirely plausible that someone simply exploited Ivins nutball actions for the phony Iraq link, as opposed to working in conjunction with Ivins.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"Your "plausible" theory assumes that ABC lied"
No it doesn't.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Protecting your sources doesn't seem like it should be a consideration when said sources flat out lie to you.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I can't understand how Ivins' suicide exonerates Saddam and his henchmen, or Hatfill for that matter. So far I'm not familiar with any report establishing Ivins as 'the lone anthrax mailer.'
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
)the fact that the anthrax came from a US Army lab makes the Saddam connection pretty unlikely though.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The US army connection had been known for years. Yet it is only with Ivin's recent suicide that Kierkegaard is convinced that Saddam was not involved. Makes no sense to me.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Though K can legitimtely say he was thrown off by the stupidity in chasing Hatfil. But still, that just indicates a stupid use of the Ames strain data, rather than a continuing reason to believe that Middle Easterners were involved.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I confess to being baffled by this whole story. Why would a successful scientist who was also a family man with a seemingly stable normal life do something like this and try to blame it on Islamic extremists?
A further question is why the government sources that ABC News quoted trying to blame the anthrax attacks on Iraq using false information? What was their motive?
- Login or register to post comments
)launched the anthrax attacks!
Are you serious? You actually believed this? Why?
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
)Lots of people believed it. Especially because the National Star offices in Ft Lauderdale had been attacked through the mail with the same exact anthrax while the 911 hijackers were living less than a mile away.
And the anthrax in the post 9-11 attacks was mailed in part from Trenton, NJ mailboxes on their route to NY. It wasn't that far-fetched a theory, especially since the only alternative explanation offered by the FBI was to blame Hatfill, whom I had reason to believe was innocent. Did you know it was Ivins all along? Few people did.
I'm happy to admit I was wrong--but I'm not not going to play your 'how could you be so stupid as to to ever imagine' game. You, after all, are the person who thinks Mormons will colonize Mars, a belief I view with open-minded respect.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )was indeed plausible and I also believed it probable, at least until the anthrax DNA was analyzed. At that point, the Islamic terror conspiracy theory began to require complicity by people having access to "our" anthrax which greatly dulls Occam's Razor.
After the anthrax origins were revealed, my top theory became (and remains) a crazed psychopathic American, although our continuing inability to definitely solve the mystery is troubling. And to target only Democratic office holders remains an odd fact.
But it is the link between Saddam Hussein and more generic "Islamic terrorists" that I find problematic.
Saddam was our enemy, Iran is our enemy, and al Qaeda is also our enemy. But they all hate each other and it is the idea that they can easily aside those hatreds to unite against us I have always found implausible. Although I do understand the domestic political benefits of fluffing a ten foot tall unified and implacable enemy, analogous to the Soviet Union.
Also of note: "Mormons on Mars" is the premise for a novel, not national policy. Cheers! ;-)
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it's another to be played.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Played like a fiddle. And whoever that tipsy neo-con was who spilled the beans to Chalabi that we'd broken Tehran's codes.
Who was that? I forget.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I understand. And I hope she stops deceiving you soon.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nt
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but 7 years? I'd likely take such a revelation as a chance to reconsider my analytical instincts, political or otherwise.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you're going to be so critical of K.'s thinking, what have your analytical instincts, political or otherwise led you to believe the last 7 years regarding the anthrax attacks?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My initial reaction? Islamic terrorists
Saddam? Nope, except maybe as a minor source of money to curry favor with al Qaeda but even that was unlikely since Saddam, Iran and al Qaeda all HATE each other, probably more than they hate us. But some flavor of Islamic terrorist was my first suspect.
Saddam was never my prime suspect as the mastermind or prime impetus. Osama bin Laden? Perhaps. Even probable. Iran wouldn't be so crude and hadn't enough to gain.
Then in early 2002 the analysis revealed Ames strain anthrax. That changed everything since an Islamic conspiracy would need American accomplices.
Once the Ames strain information came out, my top suspect became a whacked out American -- someone who might profile like Timothy McVeigh although the culprit's motive could indeed be random, perhaps as simple as plain vanilla nihilism.
I remain troubled by our inability to solve the episode and the odd fact that Democratic officeholders and "liberal media" were the primary (or sole) targets.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"Who the hell knows?"
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )isn't a bad response, based on the info we have available.
I didn't think a mideast player was responsible for the anthrax attacks, especially after the DNA testing revealed that the strain involved was from an American lab. But I didn't have facts that were of superior value to K's: it was my hunch.
Kierkegaard apologized for being wrong. Why pile up on him now?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Translates into unacceptable performance by our national security assets. Our inability to figure out who gained access to Ames strain anthrax demonstrates a serious breakdown in our own ability to safeguard the source materials for a potential WMD.
My prime theory? A nihilistic hateful American who would profile much like Timothy McVeigh. Perhaps like that guy who shot up that Knoxville church because he was mad at liberals. Perhaps.
But releasing that conclusion would undermine the "scary Islamicist" narrative wouldn't it? Unless we believe Saddam funded Timothy McVeigh. ;-/
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The SCLM and two Democratic Senators' offices. I think, with this and the church attack, Pandora's box has been opened.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You falsely asserted 'liberal targeting' the last time the anthrax attacks were mentioned. AMI and the Post don't fit the SCLM canard.
Now, you're compounding it by seeing a conspiracy linked with a church attack.
[shakes head]
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )this, but what the connection is is beyond me.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )John Brunner which depicts the random appearance of people the author calls "muckers"
Folks that snap and lose it and start killing people for little apparent motive.
This reality simply makes some people crazy.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amok
...
Wikipedia is hedging by saying "amok by women is virtually unknown". My anthropology textbook said it was completely unknown. Amok is what can happen to men when no one respects them and they don't think they'll ever get any nookie. It's by no means limited to Malaysia, of course; Columbine and VA Tech would be instantly recognizable as amok, in a West Indian culture.
It's not likely that overcrowding has much to do with it. There's no correlation with population density. Amok springs from male honor and male sexual frustration*.
(*And the teaching of evolutionary biology, obviously.)
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This makes terrific sense and I find it completely plausible that Brunner riffed off "amok" to create mucker.
I also agree that this is not about over-population, per se. Rather, changing social contexts can leave people feeling they cannot live within whatever new social context they find themselves in. Shame would be one clear example.
= = =
Osama bin Laden is (was?) a well educated upper class Saudi unable or unwilling to live in a world where Islam was not destined to assimilate everyone. But that is bin Laden and a tiny band of fanatical followers, not all Islam.
9/11 saw 19 muckers get very very lucky.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Stand on Zanzibar clearly uses a technique that interweaves multiple narratives in an innovative way however I also note that a similar technique was used by John Dos Passos in his USA trilogy, written in the 1930s. From wikipedia:
I had already read Zanzibar and immediately saw what I believed were stylistic parallels.
An aside: when I was in college, I purchased the entire USA trilogy in a glossy covered paperback edition and when the three volumes were set side by side the covers formed an American flag. I thought it was cool.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you haven't read "The Sheep Look Up" go and get it now. The details aren't perfect, but he was the first author I know of to predict the Web and its effect on society.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I read Stand on Zanzibar long long ago and I think I shall launch a Brunner marathon of reading and re-reading in the near future.
Other suggestions?
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is another favorite. The Sheep Look Up is a sort of sequel to Stand on Zanzibar. I often think of 'muckers' as well when I reflect on modern crimes related to over-population. The amazing thing is that it happens so rarely.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This must be the "I was wrong" thread...
Since the book I meant to recommend was "The Shockwave Rider"
Been too long since I've read any of Brunner's books.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but since K isn't, AFAIK, one of those national security assets, I'll give him a pass. The FBI, on the other hand, needs to start hiring some competent field agents.
Gotta say I agree with your theory. It makes the most sense.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He said that for years and years he believed it was Saddam working with al Qaeda.
Before the Ames strain data? Not a totally outrageous theory even if I find it implausible. But by the middle of 2002, no longer tenable.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I hope we don't expect folks to apologize for being wrong. In my case alone, I don't have enough time left to make all the apologies I'd owe.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )by someone with a Myspace page as woefully designed and pretentious as yours.
While we're on the subject of analytical skills.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nt
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Now insult his girlfriend, since apparently we're ditching the posting rules in favor of schoolyard taunts.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )well designed and carefully considered Myspace pages? Ostentation and mess are its modus operandi.
I hadn't intended to flame you exactly, just struck me that a mistake of this caliber should result in some soul searching.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You might want to do something about it. I was going to say something way nicer about your music, however. Too bad you turn out to be so juvenile. 'Soul-searching' indeed.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But when I go to MySpace, a search for "trouscaillon" turns up no results.
I'd like to hear the music, at least.
And try to be understanding, K. - musicians are rarely any good when it comes to the visual &/or literary arts.
V.
P.S.: that adulatory review is in the pipeline. But it requires some more sustained effort. Soon, now.
--God help the while, a bad world I say.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Just read Cecilia Holland's latest, 'Varanger'. You might enjoy it, it has some nice moments. Lousy predictable ending tho, be warned ;)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )by my count that makes three from K in this thread.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Maybe Nilsey needs one of those graphical web verifiers every time he types "Posting Rules" ;)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We ask only that people divulge their source.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )K.'s out of line here, but the comment he was reacting to wasn't exactly civil and comes across as a gratitious put down.
So I'd say that's 4.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But I'm hardly likely to trust your modding skills. If any rules were violated they began with Trouscallion's piling on about my having been 'played'. When rules are violated, then anything goes. Until they are enforced fairly. You and I had this same sort of disagreement a year ago. Back then you were able to ban me without debate. Now you aren't. I'm surprised you feel like wading in again.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .a posting rules violation isn't a "get out jail free" card for anyone who chooses to hit back, even if the violation is a direct insult. Send up a flare, and we'll warn and/or suspend accordingly. Hit back. . .and we'll end up with annoyed moderators and a crowded and diversely populated penalty box.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But former mods shouldn't attempt to function as mods. That too would be a rules violation, if I'm not mistaken.
See how complicated it's getting?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )