* questions for Congressman Holt’s anthrax investigation … Dugway + Battelle = ???

.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

Old Atlantic asks some questions for a new review of anthrax and foreign countries.

• Did Dugway make powdered spores? Did they make them to aersololize easily for some clients?
• Did Battelle order the aerosolized powder version to use in challenge experiments?  Was such delivered prior to September 18, 2001?
• Was this treatment to make the anthrax more realistic and rigorous for battle field conditions or use by a foreign power on the United States?
• Was a seed stock from RMR-1029 used to manufacture this anthrax?
• Did al Qaeda or Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Pakistan  have an asset inside Battelle?
• Or someone with links to any of these countries or organizations?
• Did they count on the US blaming domestic terrorists to avoid admitting that it had possibly violated bioweapons conventions or treaties?
• Did this come up in any discussion involving Saudi Arabia,Pakistan, or United Arab Emirates and any US government employee?  Any other country and the US?  Or between another country and a US ally?
• Did the US pick up information of any communication of such a nature using its intel resources at some point in time?
• What persons not originally from the US were at Battelle, Ft. Detrick, Dugway or similar installation from 1997 to 2001?
• What amounts of powdered anthrax were at which sites at which dates?  Were they manufactured to more easily aerosolize?  If so how?
• Did they contain silicon as part of that manufacturing in the spore coat or on the surface?
• Could silicon have been removed from the surface by the means used to prepare it for testing?  Can other anthrax from the letters be tested without removing silicon from its surface?  Can this be checked by lab methods first on other powder with silicon on its surface?
• Does the US have such anthrax or subtilis so treated for use in such experiments?
• Did a foreign power or foreign organization realize that it had a free shot on the US because the US would blame domestic terrorists instead of admitting it had made easily aerosolized powder for use in challenge experiments at Battelle or other sites in the quantity of 10 to 30 grams or more?

******

* President Obama threatens to veto the Intelligence Funding bill due to Congressman Holt’s proposed new anthrax probe … UPDATE: the Bloomberg story has been revised to state that the President finds the anthrax study objectionable but not grounds for veto

.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

Andrew Steele writes on America 20XY (3/16/10) …

• While Congressional oversight provisions in the new 2011 intel funding bill are being held up as the cause of Obama’s threatened veto of it, an article from Bloomberg (by Jeff Bliss) on March 15th points to another reason…mainly the fact that the administration doesn’t want a new investigation into the anthrax attacks for which the late Dr. Bruce Ivins has been blamed:

UPDATE FROM JEFF BLISS AT BLOOMBERG … Lew, Thanks for your e-mail. I had to run a correction on the story: the administration does oppose to a new inspector general investigation but that isn’t one of the provisions in the House bill that would prompt a veto. The president is likely to veto the bill if it emerges from negotiations between the House and Senate including the following: 1) Requirement to disclose spy operations to all House and Senate intelligence committee members that currently would only be briefed to congressional leaders 2) Authority for the General Accountability Office to conduct investigations into intelligence operations 3) Funding levels that are less than what has already been approved in another spending bill. Sorry for the confusion, and hope this clarifies things. Thanks again

• “President Barack Obama,” says the article, “probably would veto legislation authorizing the next budget for U.S. intelligence agencies if it calls for a new investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, an administration official said.
• A proposed probe by the intelligence agencies’ inspector general “would undermine public confidence” in an FBI probe of the attacks “and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions,” Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.”
• Fear of casting doubt on the FBI’s conclusions is fear of transparency, something that Obama ran on the promise of…another promise broken.  The administration’s panicked reaction to a new investigation, while halting it in the legislature, will no doubt cast further distrust in the informed public’s mind of the truth in the government’s official story, and increase speculation as to what really happened.

Read the entire post at … http://america20xy.com/blog6/2010/03/16/obamas-veto-threat-on-intel-budget-issued-because-of-proposed-anthrax-probe/

Glenn Greenwald writes on Salon …

As I’ve documented at length, not only are there enormous, unresolved holes in the FBI’s case, but many of the most establishment-defending mainstream sources — from leading newspaper editorial pages to key politicians in both parties — have expressed extreme doubts about the FBI’s case and called for an independent investigation.  For the administration to actively block an independent review of one of the most consequential political crimes of this generation would probably be its worst act yet.

LMW COMMENT …

I am a huge supporter of President Obama, but if this story is true, we will part ways on this issue. The FBI assertion that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks is bogus to its core. Continued coverup of this travesty raises far more questions than the truth might, and I personally think the truth is very very bad.

Either the FBI has actually failed to solve the case and doesn’t know who the real anthrax perpetrators are, or it knows and is covering up the truth. If the latter, the reasons for the FBI covering up the truth are perhaps more important than the attacks themselves. Congressman Holt’s probe is but the first step; it would be terribly wrong for President Obama to stand in the way of full disclosure of the FBI’s actions and conclusions.

I was so infuriated by the FBI’s pathetic August 2008 announcement that I wrote a novel (CASE CLOSED) to explain why the FBI failed to solve the case. The recent release of documents has so far done nothing but provide even more evidence that the FBI is purposely and malevolently withholding the truth.

CASE CLOSED is of course fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

******

* links? Dr. Bruce Ivins … University of Michigan researcher … Ayman Zawahiri

.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

******

******

******

******