Was Iraq Framed by a US lab and ABC?

[mindstalk]

Remember the anthrax attacks? James links to a news article that a US anthrax researcher has committed suicide, right before he was about to be charged in the attacks. After a wikipedia article, James links to a Salon piece which goes back to the time of the attacks, how the letters in the attacks tried to implicate Muslims, and the false reports of bentonite linking the letters to Iraq, fabricated reports in which ABC played a key roll. Regardless of whether the highly Christian Ivins was personally responsible, the US government is now saying a US government lab was responsible -- so a US lab contributed to the climate of fear post 9/11, and falsely linked it to Islam in general and Iraq in general, thus helping create the attitudes that made invading and destabilizing another country, resulting in tens of thousands of prevantable deaths, seem reasonable.

Me, I'd thought that was obvious it was an inside job, given how the envelopes targetted Democratic politicians and "liberal media" figures, but I hadn't thought about it for a while, nor known of ABC's role.

Welcome to the US! Even our Reichstags are privatized.

Comments

[juvenile-philos.livejournal.com]

And yet people laugh when I claim "to prevent tyranny" as a reason the recent Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment was spot on. I can only hope, they will be the first to die.

Sadly though, they'll probably just be well acclimated to the two minutes hate from watching the rants of the likes of Bill O'Reilly. I fully expect those who legitimize fear to be the cornerstone of the coming despotic dictatorship.

And I'll stop now before I get us both on the watch list.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

I'm used to the people who laugh being on the left, and those who most earnestly invoke "to prevent tyranny" including those who listen to Rush and O'Reilly.

Nice 1984 ref.

[juvenile-philos.livejournal.com]

You may find my political views somewhat incongruous with typical left/right divisions.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but we weren't talking about you, we were talking about the laughers. :)

[heron61.livejournal.com]

From my own PoV, anyone who thinks that gun ownership can prevent tyranny has not looked at many of this planet's despotic hell-holes. It's not like gun-ownership is restricted or rare in Zimbabwe. To me, believing that guns can keep us safe from despotism is frighteningly short-sighted & naive and IME tends to produce a very dangerous complacency. As I see it, once you've reached that point it's either too late to stop tyranny or the only option is the sort of guerrilla warfare that we see in Iraq, that may prevent victory by the despots but tends to result in an impressively pyrrhic victory.

I place far more trust in mass action like general strikes or (if things are less bad) hard work in election campaigns that the hope that even a well armed citizenry can do anything other than fight a horrible destructive guerrilla war against the US military.

[juvenile-philos.livejournal.com]

To be clear, the naysayers were asserting that the United States isn't anywhere near oppression.

On the other hand, the main reason I don't support gun control is because I've noticed from history that Americans are too stubborn for any kind of ban to ever work.

If I could "uninvent" guns as it were, and prevent them from ever being, I would. As it is, I believe it is better to allow citizens to own guns than to attempt any sort of ban. Consider the prohibition or the war on drugs or the reaction people have to the news that any book has been banned. It just wouldn't work.

[montyy0.livejournal.com]

my interpretation (YMMV) of the 2nd amendment is that the intent was to have the civilians have the right to maintain the ability to put up reasonable resistance to the standing army, if the government got out of line.

In the modern world, I think that would only work if civilians were allowed to have automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, destroyers, tanks, antiaircraft rockets, nuclear cruise missiles, and so forth.

I have no idea what this should mean for civilian gun rights, but I wouldn't really give the guy with a hunting rifle good odds against cobra gunships and AC-130s and smart bombs, so I tend to think that the original intent is somewhat moot. And I can understand why law enforcement doesn't really like criminals, or even "law-abiding home defense survivalists," with armor-piercing automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades wandering around...

[montyy0.livejournal.com]

In 2001, I generally used CNN Headline News and Reuters headlines for news, and I never heard anything about that at the time. The predominant belief seemed to be, pretty much from the start, that it was some disgruntled lone-gunman US citizen type who just played up the Islamic jargon either to get more attention or out of some delusion that it could influence public policy.

Whether the ABC story was a deliberate but ultimately ineffectual attempt to frame Iraq or just a case for Hanlon's Razor, I have no idea, but I never heard it used directly as a justification for the Iraq war or anything. A true conspiracy theorist might imagine that Cheney's office instructed the lab to send the bacteria and leaked the suggestion that it originated in Iraq, and that the lab did such a lousy job obfuscating the not-Iraq aspects that even in the post-9-11 hysteria they couldn't pull it off. That seems like a stretch to me, though.

The fact that the perpetrator sent it to a few tabloids and politicians seems to me like more of a personal-cause attack by an individual who had easy access to anthrax on short notice and who thought that riding the 9-11 hysteria was an opportunity. But maybe I've just read too many John Douglas books...

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

It could start as a lone gunman/helpful idiot riding the wave, then be seized upon by those who'd been looking to drum up anti-Iraq hysteria, with the false bentonite brought in by the lab covering its tracks, when asked to investigate what it had itself wrought.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

That was my reading of the situation at the time, and it seemed to be very much what I saw in most media.

From my PoV, the fact that it looks like we're finally going to turn the Republicans out of office and that they failed at much of what they tried to accomplish can be firmly attributed to the fact that they were shockingly inept. However, they still managed to start a disastrous war, enrich the oil & gas industry beyond dreams of avarice, and cause much of the world to loathe the US, which says little good about the populace and the Democratic Party. We didn't win, they lost, and the failure to turn the Anthrax attacks into something bigger was only part of this loss.

[montyy0.livejournal.com]

Well said, although I am sad that "we didn't win, they lost," misses the fact that "they" are the government who represents and supports us, so "they" is "us" in some sense, even though part of the republican attitude (and I'm disturbed that the democrats seem to be increasingly sold on this) is that they don't give two figs for representing or supporting anyone that's not in their "core base." But the "don't blame me, I didn't vote for them" is just the flip side of that, and justifies them seeing constituents as "will vote for me," "won't vote for me," and "swing voters," instead of people in their districts who they are supposed to represent across the board.

Divisive, partisan crap sucks almost as much as the Bush-era republican platform.

(and yes, I deliberately refuse to dignify political party names with capital letters.)

[heron61.livejournal.com]

The problem is that to at least some degree the current degree of partisanship is inevitable - we're in the midst of a moderate-scale culture war in the US, with (on one side) the highly secular, social democracies of western europe serving as a model for people like myself, and a (to me utterly horrifying) vision of the US as a "Christian nation" with largely unrestrained capitalism on the other. Middle ground has gotten fairly slim. In a very real sense, there are two groups, and in many ways one group gaining ground results in the other losing ground. Here's my discussion (with links to an excellent article) of one aspect of these cultural differences.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

A true conspiracy theorist might imagine that Cheney's office instructed the lab to send the bacteria and leaked the suggestion that it originated in Iraq, and that the lab did such a lousy job obfuscating the not-Iraq aspects that even in the post-9-11 hysteria they couldn't pull it off. That seems like a stretch to me, though.

Especially since the lab would be committing murder at the instructions of the Vice-President, and hence wouldn't even have "we were only following orders" to stand on in their own defense. FYI, the Vice-President cannot issue legally-binding orders to anyone, unless specifically deputized by the President to do so.

Remember what John Nance Garner said of the office :)

[montyy0.livejournal.com]

well, the lawyers who hang around Cheney seem to think that executive privilege and such protect the VP's, er, vices as well as the president's, so they've managed to create an environment where the "I was following orders" excuse can be extended to "and because of executive privilege, I don't have to say whose orders they were, and it's a requirement for national security that we can't discuss it any further, even if Congress issues subpoenas."

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

well, the lawyers who hang around Cheney seem to think that executive privilege and such protect the VP's, er, vices as well as the president's, so they've managed to create an environment where the "I was following orders" excuse can be extended to "and because of executive privilege, I don't have to say whose orders they were, and it's a requirement for national security that we can't discuss it any further, even if Congress issues subpoenas."

You're missing the point -- Vice-Presidents don't set policy. In fact the only things of importance vice-presidents get to do is:

(1) - Cast the deciding vote in Senate ties,
(2) - What the President deputizes them to do, and
(3) - Become President on the death of the President.

I don't see why this Administration becomes an exception to the rule just because the media likes to pretend that Dubya is utterly brain-less and will-less.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Those are the Constitutional powers of the Vice-President. But Cheney has taken a much more active role in shaping policy, and it's disingenuous of you to just blame that on "the media".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Vice-President

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Cheney's role in shaping politics amounts to successfully persuading Bush of the merits of certain policies. It's still Bush who has the final decision, and from whom the power emnates.

In order to see why, imagine if Bush decided not to listen to Cheney, compared to the situation of Cheney not listening to Bush.

[montyy0.livejournal.com]

The Constitution doesn't really say much of anything about how the President chooses to organize the executive branch, and while the vice president has no Constitutional authority for anything but what you said, this Bush administration has set things up so much of the federal reporting structure goes through the VP's office.

I'm not really an expert, but I've been impressed by John Dean's books (Conservatives Without Conscience and Broken Government are the ones I've read) and he sums this topic up in the former (p.157):

Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice president in American history. His power comes from his knowledge of how Washington really works, and it far exceeds that of the man he ostensibly works for. Unlike Bush, Cheney relishes the minutiae of government policy and process, and he has surrounded himself with a staff that is stronger and far more competent than the president's personal staff. Unlike prior vice presidents, Cheney and his people have often taken the lead on issues, with the White House staff falling in line. Cheney has long been a behind-the-scenes operator, for he was badly burned by the news media during his tenure as White House chief of staff. His ego does not need the spotlight, and his dark view of the world and life is, in any case, better suited to working behind closed doors.

Although I took the melodramatic summary, Dean lays out some specific details backing up this position in those books (I saw him talk recently also.) I've been impressed with his views and supporting documentation, although whether that makes him insightful or just convincing (or me naive) is a matter of opinion, I suppose. But I've read in many places that much of the executive branch's reporting structure goes through Cheney's office, and is vetted by people like David Addington (who works directly for Cheney) and John C. Yoo (who is part of the Office of Legal Counsel, I guess.)

Although by Constitutional arguments, Bush is responsible in that Cheney can't do anything that Bush doesn't allow, in practice it appears that Bush gives Cheney enormous influence, if not unfettered control, over much of the executive branch. The fact that this is by Bush's choice doesn't mean Cheney isn't doing this stuff, although if you feel like blaming Bush rather than Cheney for everything Cheney does with Bush's approval, I suppose in a "the buck stops here" that's got some legal merit.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

... although if you feel like blaming Bush rather than Cheney for everything Cheney does with Bush's approval, I suppose in a "the buck stops here" that's got some legal merit.

"Some legal merit?" Bush is, in actual fact, responsible for anything and everything Cheney does on any authority that Bush delegates to him. This is why it would behoove Bush to be very careful to check up on what Cheney is doing.

And yes, before you bring it up, Reagan rather than Bush's father was responsible for Iran-Contra.

[montyy0.livejournal.com]

Is "legally liable" the same as "ethically culpable" in your world? Also, is there no such thing as "shared legal liability" in your legal interpretation?

To be completely honest, I'm either not understanding your argument, or hearing that you're saying that no one in the executive branch except the President can be held responsible for anything that isn't specified in the Constitution, and since almost nothing is specified in the constitution about the executive branch, it sounds like you're saying no one but Bush can be held responsible for anything, ever. In fact, It sounds like if Dick Cheney came over to your house and punched you in the nose, you'd consider that to be legally and ethically Bush's fault, and harbor no ill will toward Cheney about it. Unless the senate had been tied in a 50-50 vote on whether Cheney should punch you in the nose, I guess.

Since this seems silly, I suspect we're just missing each others' points, anyway. so maybe I should just say I think Cheney, not through constitutionally granted authority but through influence and political manipulation, has had a severe, detrimental impact on American government policy and process, and I think he's morally responsible for using his influence to screw up the country. Whether he has successfully ducked legal responsibility for that is not really something I'm qualified to discuss, but I'm pretty sure it's not cut-and-dried and probably subject to the interpretation of the judiciary.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

To be completely honest, I'm either not understanding your argument, or hearing that you're saying that no one in the executive branch except the President can be held responsible for anything that isn't specified in the Constitution, and since almost nothing is specified in the constitution about the executive branch, it sounds like you're saying no one but Bush can be held responsible for anything, ever.

No, I'm saying that all the authority of the Executive Branch derives from the President, and that he is ultimately responsible for setting policy, even if he deputizes his power. In other words, if Cheney (or anyone else) in the Executive Branch committed malfeasance or any other felonies, Bush would have to either argue that the culprit did so on his own, or be held responsible for that person's actions. Neither Cheney, nor anyone else in the Executive Branch, has any legitimate authority that does not derive from the President.

In fact, It sounds like if Dick Cheney came over to your house and punched you in the nose, you'd consider that to be legally and ethically Bush's fault, and harbor no ill will toward Cheney about it.

No, I'd consider that Cheney either chose to do it himself, or was acting as Bush's agent in doing so. If Cheney chose to do it himself and Bush did not sanction it, this act of aggression against my nose would have been committed without the legitimate authority of the Executive Branch.

so maybe I should just say I think Cheney, not through constitutionally granted authority but through influence and political manipulation, has had a severe, detrimental impact on American government policy and process, and I think he's morally responsible for using his influence to screw up the country.

That would certainly be possible, because "influence and political manipulation" means persuasion, and Cheney of course has both the same right to persuade Bush of things as does anyone else -- and considerably greater opportunity. But note -- Bush is still responsible for anything he was persuaded to do, since "persuasion" is not a magic mind control power.

[montyy0.livejournal.com]

yeah, that seems more plausible, in a "yellow cake" sort of way.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I actually don't remember a linkage between the anthrax letters and Iraq -- if it was "publicized," it wasn't very well publicized. The political climate post 9-11 was created almost entirely by the 9-11 attacks themselves. And Iraq was invaded largely because Iraq had substantially violated every single one of the terms of the 1991 truce, of which the refusal to allow inspections of their WMD facilities to ensure that they had been properly shut down was just one.

Furthermore, it's far from obvious that the Iraq War caused more deaths than it prevented, given that Saddam Hussein himself murdered several hundred thousand of his fellow Iraqis indirectly, and through his other policies got another several hundred thousand killed in wars he started, and the resultant sanctions. It's quite possible that if Saddam had been left in power, more Iraqis would have died at his hands than died at the hands of all parties in the current war.