Dezelfde Mueller deed onderzoek naar de antrax aanvallen in de VS na de 911 terreuraanvallen in 2001. Hoewel hij niet verantwoordelijk was, voor de bewering, dat het Irak van Saddam Hoessein achter die antrax aanvallen zat, heeft hij de 6 jaar daarna flink z'n best gedaan om zoveel mogelijk te verdoezelen, de zaak te vertroebelen voor het volk en de zaak zolang mogelijk te rekken..... Immers de VS besloot mede op basis van die antrax aanvallen en de massavernietigingswapens door/van Irak, dat land aan te vallen........ Overigens bleek na onderzoek, dat de gebruikte antrax uit een legerlaboratorium van de VS kwam.......
Gisteren bracht Anti-Media een artikel over deze zaak, een artikel dat eerder op MintPress News verscheen, geschreven door Robbie Martin. Hij concludeert dat er grote overeenkomsten zijn, met de eerdere aanklachten tegen Saddam Hoessein en die nu tegen Rusland worden gebruikt.
Mensen, je weet niet wat je leest en ik zelf kan (alweer) maar één conclusie trekken: de VS wordt geregeerd door een stel psychopathische gekken, waar de echte macht voor een groot deel niet eens bij de regering ligt, maar bij de 'Deep-State'*
Anthrax And “Russiagate”: Mueller’s Special Counsel Appointment Should Raise Concern
May
31, 2017 at 10:30 am
Written
by Anti-Media
News Desk
(MPN) Amidst
the overwhelming bipartisan
praise given to former FBI Director Robert Mueller for
his appointment as special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation,
few media outlets have voiced concern over his credentials.
Mueller’s unforgivably
poor performance during
an investigation into the 2001 anthrax scare should give pause to
those who hope to find out the truth about Russia’s alleged
involvement in U.S. politics.
In October 2001 – less than a month after the 9/11 terror attacks – weaponized anthrax spores were sent through the U.S. mail system to prominent politicians and journalists. The anthrax attacks generated hysteria and panic, as well as created the perception that terrorism was going to remain a major threat, with 9/11 representing just the first wave.
The
anthrax attacks also provided the George W. Bush administration with
the opportunity to create a three-way connection in the public
consciousness between the 9/11 attacks, the anthrax attacks, and
Saddam Hussein. The “WMD lies” that would lead the U.S. into war
in Iraq were hatched from one initial lie: that the anthrax mailings
had fingerprints that could be traced
back to the
Iraqi government’s biological weapons program and that they
represented a second wave of terrorism.
Major
players in the U.S. government made
strong efforts to link the anthrax attacks to the Iraqi government –
efforts that Mueller played no part in. But in the following six
years, Mueller did participate in a public disinformation campaign
that muddied the waters regarding the 2001 anthrax attacks.
He
and his bureau were in a position to unravel the underlying rationale
for mounting an illegal invasion that left over a million Iraqi
civilians dead. Instead, they worked to bury that rationale and stoke
fears that would help to prop up public support for the invasion.
Looking back at the way in which the case was handled, it is clear
that Mueller may not be the most suitable candidate for heading the
ongoing investigation into “Russiagate.”
Flimsy evidence and false accusations
As
early as Nov. 9, 2001 – less than one month after the anthrax
attacks began – the FBI had identified
anthrax in the letters as being of the “Ames strain,” a
strain of anthrax that was isolated by U.S. researchers in 1981. Due
to its domestic origins, the FBI concluded that the attacks were
likely perpetrated by someone working within the U.S. and not by a
foreign actor.
Despite
having this knowledge, the Bush administration sent then-Secretary of
State Colin Powell to the UN with
a prop vial of anthrax in
order to obtain support for the Iraq War. Mueller could’ve turned
the course of events at the time by making sure the press was aware
that the most likely culprit was inside the U.S., but instead chose
not to interfere with Bush’s neoconservative agenda. Powell’s
presentation of “evidence” of Iraq’s alleged possession of
chemical and biological weapons formed a major part of the U.S.
effort to build a case for war in Iraq – although the country’s
possession of these weapons would eventually prove to be a falsehood.
In
another pivotal moment in the case, Mueller privately briefed Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and former Senator Tom Daschle – both of
whom were targeted with anthrax letters – regarding the FBI’s
prime suspect, a retired
bioweapons scientist named Steven Hatfil.
Mueller’s
best evidence came from bloodhounds, who had evidently traced
the scent from the anthrax letters to Hatfil’s apartment.
What Mueller neglected to mention is that bloodhound scent evidence
is often
inaccurate and has even led to wrongful convictions.
But it was too late for Hatfil, as the press had already begun to
crucify him after the FBI came forward with its “evidence.” Some
agents even used the bloodhounds as props in press conferences that
could be better described as publicity stunts.
Hatfil’s
life was turned upside-down by the accusations. He was hounded by the
FBI and other authorities, facing deliberate
harassment tactics often referred to as “bumper locking.” He
tearfully denied the FBI’s accusations during two news conferences
held in August 2002, but by that time his life and career had already
been shredded to pieces due to his naming as a “person of interest”
in the investigation. Hatfil would later receive
a $4.6-million-dollar
settlement from the FBI in 2008 after
filing a lawsuit against the Bureau, but only after five years of
litigation and the destruction of his personal and professional
reputation.
But
Mueller and the FBI weren’t done yet. That same year, they ended
up pinning
the attacks on a man named Bruce Ivins,
a senior biodefense researcher at Maryland’s Fort Detrick military
installation. Their accusation would lead Ivins to commit
suicide by overdosing on
a combination of Tylenol and codeine, a method of suicide that some
thought to be an unlikely choice for someone with Ivins’ level of
biological expertise.
Even
after claiming to have solved the case, the FBI faced
skepticism regarding its conclusions.
Leahy spoke to Mueller at a three-hour public hearing, stating that
he did not believe that Ivins was the only culprit:
“I
believe there were others involved either before or after the fact
who were complicit…I believe there are others involved who could be
charged with murder.”
Leahy’s
Republican counterpart, former Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania,
also questioned the FBI’s findings:
“I’ve
looked over a good bit of the evidence on the anthrax case just to
contrast prosecutors’ opinions…and I have grave doubts about
sufficiency of evidence for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
When
the FBI decided to give a press conference on the final conclusion of
their investigation, Mueller declined to attend, eating dinner at a
restaurant about a block away. He instead allowed two lower-ranking
investigators to sweat their way through the surprisingly adversarial
questions that were lobbed at them by attending journalists.
Video
of this press conference shows
an almost unanimously incredulous press pool, some even visibly angry
over the series of non-answers given to them by FBI officials. They
offered only one piece of physical evidence to the public: a flask
they said contained spores that they claimed Ivins used to grow a
colony of the “Ames strain” during his off-hours at Ft. Detrick.
But there was one major problem with their “smoking gun”
evidence.
The
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was asked by the FBI to verify the
evidence but
concluded that
anthrax found in the flask could not be traced back to anthrax
contained in the letters. But instead of waiting for the NAS to
release these findings, Mueller allowed the FBI to pre-empt the NAS
with their own press conference. A 2011 report from the National
Research Council also
called the FBI’s findings into question.
Russiagate: why the anthrax case matters
In
light of his poor handling of the anthrax case, one has to wonder:
why is the media now celebrating Mueller’s appointment as special
counsel for the Russia-Trump investigation? One doesn’t need to
look far to find multiple parallels between the false WMD claims made
by the Bush administration – which had their origins in the anthrax
scare – and the media’s current obsession with finding evidence
of Russian meddling in last year’s election. In both cases, the
media fixated on questionable evidence and the creation of an
artificial “bogeyman” to advance a deeper, more sinister agenda.
Both
the false WMD claims that led the U.S. into the Iraq War and the
ongoing Russia scaremongering campaign have relied on a vague
three-way connection between unrelated parties in order to shoehorn
in a larger national security and foreign policy scheme. Under Bush,
this was done by artificially connecting 9/11 to the anthrax attacks,
and then to Saddam Hussein, creating a climate of fear. That same
climate is being recreated now – only this time, the specter is
Russia.
Democrats
and their allies are using a similar psychological warfare campaign
to create a fictitious three-way connection between Trump, Russia and
WikiLeaks in the public consciousness during a time of emotional
trauma for Democratic voters. The larger theory posits that all three
parties were colluding with each other to take down Hillary Clinton —
even if no proof has been offered that Russia
was WikiLeaks’ source.
This
narrative has been bolstered by the use of weaponized mainstream
media terms like “fake news” and an increasingly prevalent
McCarthy-esque mindset among Clinton voters who are quick to accuse
their opponents of being Putin apologists. Even supporters of Bernie
Sanders, who was running on the Democratic ticket just as Clinton
was, have faced such accusations.
Americans
should not want a man who knew the Bush administration was trying to
create a fictional connection between Hussein, anthrax and 9/11 to
have the final verdict on another new three-way fiction: the
conspiratorial web being woven between WikiLeaks, Trump and Russia.
Robbie
Martin is a writer and documentary filmmaker behind “A
Very Heavy Agenda,
& American
Anthrax.
He also co-hosts Media Roots Radio with Abby Martin.
Follow
Robbie on Twitter at @FluorescentGrey
=============================* Deep State: een samenwerkingsverband van de geheime diensten, politici die als lobbyist grote bedrijven dienen (waaronder oliemaatschappijen en de wapenindustrie), hoge invloedrijke ambtenaren (als Mueller), het militair-industrieel complex en de financiële maffia (banken e.d.), waar ik zelf nog de reguliere media aan toe zou willen voegen. Dit daar de reguliere VS mediaorganen in handen zijn van een kleine groep welgestelden, al dan niet in de vorm van grote aandeelhouders. (dat laatste gaat op voor de rest van de reguliere westerse media, ook die in Nederland)
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels, die u hieronder terug kan vinden.
