Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, December 08, 2008

In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Bani

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Whoops. More lies from Bush and company. What a surprise.


Obama Fault
~Vernon

FTA: On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."

But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon

BushCo badgered and bullied both the CIA and the FBI into lying about Bin Laden in order to up the fear factor in order to sell their so-called "war" in Iraq to the American people.

While the MSM played along like the lapdogs they have become there were elements in both the FBI and the CIA who resisted these blandishments.

Just the tip of the ice berg, peoples.

Be Well.


FTA: On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."


More than just FTA it's from the NY Daily News far from a lefty rag. Bush should have stuck to the hubris, all this 'sorry about that' is so out of character and unbecoming. This story is what the Bush regime was all about and will be remembered.

the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next.

Around the time this was all going down I watched an interview with a former Russian anthrax scientist (or some such). When the interviewer asked the scientist if this could be Russian anthrax, he starkly replied (paraphrasing): "No. If this was our anthrax, there would be no one left in Washington."

I don't really know what the definition of weapons-grade is, but apparently it's a pretty broad definition.

If you remember at the time AQ was the prime suspect in the court of public opinion....Of course AQ is a non threat to many US apologists here.

Is this a story? NO!!!!!!

Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."

Assklown was still using fellow travelling morons like Rush Pillbottle to convince the slack-jawed yokels that Saddam and Osama were bffs long after the sane (and even Dubya) had discredited it.

Al Queda or Al Gore?

The anthrax attacks were concurrent with the debate of Bush's Patriot Act by Congress and the media.

The Senators who received anthrax letters were trying to amend the Patriot Act to protect civil liberties and the innocent.

Two Senate democratic leaders received anthrax letters mailed the same day that Senator Feingold blocked an attempt to rush the bill through without discussion or amendments.

And on that very same day, the FBI told the Iowa state lab to destroy the original batch of the Ames strain, making tracing the anthrax type more difficult.

Senator Leahy received an anthrax threat after he expressed reservations about the Bill. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he managed the debate on the Bill.

Senate Majority Leader Daschle received the first Senate anthrax letter as he led the opposition to the original version of the Bill.

After receiving the anthrax letter, Daschle switched from supporting a 2 year limit on the Bill, later defending a 4-year sunset clause as the "appropriate balance."

No Republican received an anthrax letter.

The House and Senate buildings were closed and not reopened until after the Patriot Act was passed.

The Supreme Court was shut down with an anthrax scare the day after the constitutionally-challenged Patriot Act was signed by President Bush.

All the contaminated letters contained the Ames strain of anthrax, the DNA of which is traced to the original batch preserved in a university lab in Ames, Iowa. This strain was "weaponized" in Utah into a potent powder with an elaborate secret technique developed at Fort Detrick, Md.

The FBI failed to interview Ft. Detrick anthrax experts for two months into their investigation, doing it only after the experts complained to the press of gross incompetence on the part of the FBI.

The FBI overruled local homicide detectives who think that an anthrax expert was murdered, possibly because he knew too much.

Excellent post, Cricket. I knew back then that there had to be a reason why anthrax was sent only to the media and Democrats. I never thought about the Patriot Act connection until now.

Face it, people. Americans sent anthrax to Americans.

"....Of course AQ is a non threat to many US apologists here."

Yes DAVETHEWAVE, due to the inconvenient fact that the DNA of that Anthrax was tracealbe to a government lab. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been an Al Quaeda attack.....DUMBASS!!!!

There's really nothing Bush wouldn't have done to usher in Armageddon. Too bad Armageddon is a fairy tale believed in by mindless morons. Thus, complete fail.

Fucking fearmongering warhawk shitbombs.

WORST! ADMINISTRATION! EVER!

Reading that article Bush and Cheney come across at a couple of bullies trying to cower the rest of the class into falling in line.

Thus, complete fail.

#12 | Posted by LetUsPrey


Bush is such a failure that he failed at failing. I suppose it could be worse. i mean we could have had....oh....ummmm.....like Satan or Pee-wee Herman, maybe. or my garbage man that waves like hell everytime i see him. I'm sure all of those guys would be a worse president than bush.

Lassie wouldn't have made a good president, but he could help out if you ever fell in a well.

but Lassie has morals. which is more than we can say for bush/cheney.

Bush suppporters...oh bush supporters....where are you on this thread...helllloooooooooo.....

Oh, My Bad. Probably gearing up some talking points about tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists on the left trying to destroy Bush's Historic and Heroic 'accomplimentaries as the presidentifier.'

Dumpling You have to understand the Bushites are making huge purchases of truckloads of Lava and lye soaps. They gonna need lots of that stuff for the rest of their fucking lives. bwhahahahaaha They be scrubbing all night and day long. No time to post deflections.

Larry

I'm surprised they didn't try to link the anthrax up to Saddam. Though, of course, Cheney had "proof" that Iraqi intelligence met with Atta. That hardly anything these thugs have claimed turned out to be true doesn't seem to bother either them or their lockstepping supporters a whit.

"Round up the usual suspects."-Capt. Renault

Yeah, yeah. The White House wants this and the White House wants that... Why doesn't the White House want a better economy?

Which is why they were probably the actual responsible terrorists.

There just aren't any terrorists that can kill, render homless, destroy infrastructues and wreck whole economies like the USA and their WMDs.


Yeah, yeah. The White House wants this and the White House wants that... Why doesn't the White House want a better economy?

#20 | Posted by Apocalypto at 2008-12-08 09:45 PM | Reply


Well, at least we will have a different "White House" soon. It's something.

Hey danni don't you even READ????

I said exactly such.

Bush should be known from today forward solely as a liberator of millions. Brush all that other stuff under the carpet!

Perhaps with a real Justice Department in place the anthrax attacks will, at last, be investigated.

wow, you guys lap up bs stories like its ur morning crack fix.

according to a former aide.

"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.

wow, such great sources!

you mean, the standing president, after being attacked by AQ, then witnessing an internal even more fear wrenching attack from US citizens, wanted the US public to think the latter was from the outside as well to stifle even further confusion and possible anarchy from the US public. the nerve of them!!!

we should hang the entire administration... owe wait, we're supposed to be peace lovers.... whoops. our mistake... again.

-US liberals

we should suck the entire administration's testicles... owe wait, we're supposed to be intelligent.... whoops. our mistake... again.

-US conservatives

These folks have no shame. The amount of lies, innuendos and failed attempts at stretching the reach and scope of AQ are vast and obvious to most. They lied then to justify pre-determined policies and they are lying now, as we saw Rice suggesting that the mumbai attack was most likely AQ when most locals knew otherwise.

The amount of crap this administration has force fed you guys is unbelievable and the next few decades should reveal the extent of the fraud.

"then witnessing an internal even more fear wrenching attack from US citizens, wanted the US public to think the latter was from the outside as well to stifle even further confusion and possible anarchy from the US public."

That is the dumbest thing I've read here in a long time.

apocalypto, you see, i'm simply taking an objective viewpoint here without a 'bush is out to ruin this country' filter in front of me. try it. it helps when analyzing specific issues such as this.

as an overall point, yes bush fucked us over. good riddence, and i look forward to the new administration. however i'm not blinded with hate when i look at specific issues such as this non-issue.

a big part of being intelligent is being able to be objective. again, try it instead of spewing hate. especially when you claim to be liberal, which is supposed to mean accepting and objective etc, its turned into the opposite in many ways.

sully, you may think so. its called devil's advocate, i'm looking for the other side of the coin. the side that makes sense. you can say that the admin wanted to increase the fear of AQ for their desire to entire iraq. which may be partially true, and completely sad. however there may be slightly more to the story, like the admin trying to keep the nation calm. i know, crazy thoughts right. at least its more insight into the issue than me copying one of the idiotic posts obove mine and writing "That is the dumbest thing I've read here in a long time."

its called a different viewpoint. analyze it, argue it, think about it. but dismissing it because its opposite of what your filter tells you to think is not very smart.

maybe some people in the admin wanted to keep the country focused on an outside enemy that we can unify against instead of getting hysterical with conspiracy theories and fearing that joe the neighbor has anthrax and is going to use it on you. just a thought. is it the slightest bit possible? is there a chance that this admin had a fraction of an ounce of care for the overall well being of the common citizen? maybe.

or maybe it was just one little part in bush's attempt to take over the world!!!! bwahahahah!

...talk about fear mongering...

In Yodar's view it is OK for the government to lie to us as long as they pertect us from all them islamies and commies and stuff.

How fast will his tune change when Obammy is in there?

This would be consistent with Administration policy. After all, they tried to blame 911 on Iraq, Abu Grahib on the soldiers and the current financial mess on Barney Frank. They have been remarkably disciplined in their approach to trouble shooting. I doubt the Obama Administration will be as successful at dodging responsibility.

slaryman. i don't necessarily think its ok for the gov to lie to us, but as the overall population goes, yes it is ok for the gov to lie to us in some instances. for example, if we knew every threat that our intel picked up, the country would be in caos. why do you think obama has changed his tune so quickly after being part of the intel meetings with bush and mccain?

i was simply thinking of a reason they would lie to us regarding this specific attack. and its not a lie that isn't ever uncovered, its a temporary 'explanation' for the confusion at the time. i think if they immediately told the public that it was military grade anthrax stolen from our personal reserves, it would have created bigger problems then needed. these facts need to come out to the public over time. often they are figured out early by few.

y do you think the gov ufo files aren't public? because avoiding hysteria is part of keeping this nation safe.

again, i'm simply analyzing the situation, not condoning it.... instead of immediately judging an issue or act, its best to analyze first, that way you don't come to the incorrect conclusion too fast.

So in a long drawn out way you just said it's OK for the Government to lie as long as they mean well.

You are a fool.

Late breaking news from August!

yes in some cases its very necessary for the gov to lie to us.

you don't understand much about national security.

well lie/withhold information. however you want to look at it.

kinda like the pentagon attack, very well might have been a missile from a hijacked US navy ship. but that kind of information can't become public.

to the US public/the world/our enemies.

"yes in some cases its very necessary for the gov to lie to us.

you don't understand much about national security."

Lying about the anthrax attack wouldn't have been a security issue. If you want Americans to help find the bastard sending the anthrax, you don't throw them off the trail by lying. The only reason to lie in that case is to scare people in hopes that it will lead them to support Bush's idiotic "war on terror" no questions asked.

You don't understand much about basic morality.

morality? its a moral obligation for the gov to tell us the truth? or is it an overall, all-encompassing, absolute obligation for the gov to keep us safe? its the latter my friend.

so do you think the gov wanted joe schmoe to help with their investigation? or do you think the gov wanted to keep the intel they had under wraps so as not to hinder their investigation? ur definitely not a cop are you?

public hysteria is a security issue as often people lose their basic human MORALITY when they are caught up in fits of hysteria.

That's the problem some of us value freedom over security. In a free society there is no room for secrecy; with the caveat that battle plans etc need to be secret until their revelation will not affect the outcome.

so avoiding national hysteria becomes a national security issue, by solving/avoiding millions of individual morality issues.

were u less free being kept out of the anthrax investigation?

i don't believe my freedoms are based on my involvement (or lack of involvement) in gov investigations.

my freedom is more reliant on having an objective free press than my involvement in gov investigations..... however we seem to be losing the former daily.... if not already altogether.

Yoda you are not. Talking to you is like talking to my wife she can't see past the end of her nose either.
Good thing is I can shut you off; her not so much.

I have read that the weaponized form of Anthrax that was sent to Congress only two men in the US knew how to produce and they both worked at Fort Detrick, Md.

This strain had an element no other strain has. It was binded to silicone (glass) to make it float like a snowflake. Fort Detrick was also the only facility that had a dryer sophisticated enough to enable the Anthrax to affix itself to the Silicone.

slaryman, as much as i enjoy being compared to your wife and your domestic problems.... it doesn't really do much for your argument/POV. funny that you use the phrase: 'can't see past the end of her nose' when thats kinda the whole reason i even began writing in this thread... to get you to see past it. can't say i didn't try. next time continue the discussion instead of giving up altogether.... its often the escape route us males take when it comes to a disagreement between the sexes. me included.

Yodle, I thought I had made my case as clear as possible. You also made your case. We obviously disagree. How long would you like to talk in circles?

You: lie to me as long as you pertect me from all teh booggiemen. (are you sure you are not a woman?)

Me: I am a grown man tell me the truth because I can handle it.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Ad Nausieum

Get it?

slary, your last point was: "That's the problem some of us value freedom over security. In a free society there is no room for secrecy; with the caveat that battle plans etc need to be secret until their revelation will not affect the outcome."

i then posed a question to you which was meant for you to reflect on and respond to: were u less free being kept out of the anthrax investigation?

i then explained to you how and why secrecy can be important when it comes to gov investigations. i also explained to you how keeping public hysteria to a minimum is important to national security, and that sometimes in order to do so the gov needs to keep things from the general public.

i'd expect you, as two mature adults typically debate, to first answer my question, then maybe counter my point about secrecy and its involvement in gov investigations. and possibly to counter my citizen hysteria argument.

typically in a debate people first offer their differing opinions, then we peel back eachother's opinions using examples and reflective questions.

we offered our differing opinions, i gave you a reflective question and several other points to show how i came to my opinion. now instead of answering my reflective question and perhaps offering up one of your own, and then countering my points that show how i came to my opinion, you gave up and compared me to your domestic disputes with your wife. i made a funny point how such is typical of us males.

you then continued your immature 'give up on the actual debate with points etc' stance and at the same time showed everyone that you are not at all intelligent. not simply because you couldn't continue a debate, but because you are a chauvinist.

Me: I am a grown man tell me the truth because I can handle it.

-slaryman

yes, you may be able to handle the truth and refrain from mas hysteria. but can't you take a step back and imagine for just one second that there are people out there in this country that can't always handle the truth... without flying off the handle?

i can put it into chauvinist language if that helps: don't you think there are some truths out there in the world that should be withheld from all the weak women and children?

You ARE a woman!

Dude this is teh interwebs not your college debate class or whatever. Holy God, do you even read the majority of posts here? Get a clue man you are on the event horizon of an intellectual black hole.

does my gender matter?

and sorry, i thought for a second maybe you could participate in a healthy debate. my mistake, go back to your dribble if thats what you prefer.

No in reality you are just a faceless name on my screen. As am I to you. I wonder are you relatively new to the internet? What I mean is that a message board is no place for intelligent discourse.

And I thought that this part was rather clever:"Get a clue man you are on the event horizon of an intellectual black hole." No? Everyone's a critic I guess.

lol yes i thought it was clever. and no i'm not new.... i used to come on this site daily but then started actually paying attention to my job. lately things are slow, hence my return.

and regarding intelligent discourse here, i can often find someone who is willing to keep it up. the others often fade away, but the few who really do want to debate and possibly expand the ways in which they think about things will continue with me. its mutually beneficial and happens often. try it sometime, you may actually change or grow one of your viewpoints.

so if ur up for the challenge, go back to ur post #47 and look at my subsequent posts, then think broadly about the whole subject and we may actually gain from this.

But, As you really seem honestly interested in real discussion, I will answer honestly.

No, I do not believe that the Government has any cause to lie to the American People ever. For me this is not negotiable. Furthermore in this case the lie seems more aimed at directing the hysteria rather than preventing it. This kind of manipulation in my opinion borders on treason.

first off, you started off there by contradicting yourself: "In a free society there is no room for secrecy; with the caveat that battle plans etc need to be secret until their revelation will not affect the outcome."

u said that earlier.

"Furthermore in this case the lie seems more aimed at directing the hysteria rather than preventing it". i think keeping the american people 'focused' on one enemy at a time lessens hysteria. but u have a point.

let me pose a hypothetical situation: if the gov knows of an incoming nuclear bomb to a specific city, and they are trying to stop it...... which involves investigation on the ground in that city, should the gov tell the people of that city of the threat and cause mass hysteria? or should they lie?

there are better examples, like the ufo maybe and others. but how do you answer that one?

what about various intelligence gatherings that detail future plans for foreign attackers on our soil that CIA and NSA find out about? should those truths be laid out to the american public?

if you've answered no on any of those questions then you've drawn the line. ie, its not an absolute as you previously stated: "No, I do not believe that the Government has any cause to lie to the American People ever."

so 'ever' doesn't count anymore because you drew a line. now we just differ on where that line and when that line is drawn.

let me pose a hypothetical situation: if the gov knows of an incoming nuclear bomb to a specific city, and they are trying to stop it...... which involves investigation on the ground in that city, should the gov tell the people of that city of the threat and cause mass hysteria? or should they lie?

This isn't a TV show moron.

Well if you were part of the in the know gov. would you tell your family?

It's pretty common sense but apparently some people just think way too much and lose that rational common sense about morals and ethics.

I do not see the contradiction battle plans by necessity need to be secret right up to one second after the battle starts at which time the plans are usually worth about as much as the paper they are printed on.

If there was a credible threat to a city that city should be evacuated, don't you think?

Not sure I follow the whole UFO line.

money, i was just trying to get the most extreme hypothetical case, where he would say it was okay to keep a secret. no i wouldn't tell my family if it risked compromising the investigation.

slary, rushed hysterical evacuations are sure to cause many fatalities. and if that evacuation hinders the hunt for the culprit, then its not efficient and the need for secrecy is pertinent.

if we are harnessing technology from a UFO, and have had a few scary encounters with said beings, then maybe its not a good idea to let the public in on it.

i would keep going and give better hypotheticals but i need to get back to trying to save this company from going under in '09.

have a good night everyone. and check out those lakers!

MY LATE MORTGAGE PAYMENT IS ALLKEEDA. MY WIFE IS DIVORCING ME CAUSE ALLKEEDA. MY DOG GOT HIT BY A BUS CAUSE ALLKEEDA. MY COUNTRY IS GOING TO GO BANKRUPT AND ITS ALL THAT FUCKING ALLKEEDA.
those guys suck...whoever they are

I'm confused. Why this news from August? I don't remember...Did it make it into the Retort IN AUGUST?
If not, why not?

salaryman...If you are trying to sound intelligent you need to start with learning how to communicate using the written language. On this forum it is English. There is a long established heritage with this new skill you are learning that is called grammar and punctuation. Master that before you come off like an idiot again.

AQ did the recent India attack, too:>)


Bush Warns Pakistan as He Defends Military Strategy

www.nytimes.com

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable