Ivins, of course. Bruce E. Ivins, not Molly, who is also dead and sadly missed.
It certainly appears that one researcher working alone could have done all the technical stuff involved with this. They decided that before they spent untold millions of dollars focusing on the wrong guy, who is now $5.2 million richer for the harassment.
Maybe they have evidence proving he was the one who wrote all the little terrorist letters and notes that pointed to Islamic terrorists.
But it’s kind of hard to figure how he could also be the four separate highly-placed officials who were feeding disinformation to ABC during the panic, the network’s broadcasting of which was undoubtedly a major part of the cause of the anthrax panic, as well as the subsequent investigative focus on pinning it on somebody, anybody.
I’d like to rank some of the possibilities, but we have multiple threads here. So it’s not a simple “either/or” situation. Let’s just see what is probable (according to my limited knowledge here) and I’ll suggest alternatives where the probabilities seem to require them.
I’m really only trying to make you think and do your own research, not cover such a vast topic comprehensibly.
- Did Ivins work alone on the Anthrax-handling part of it?
- Could be.
- Did Ivins work alone making and mailing out those terrorist notes and letters?
- Could be.
- Did Ivins carry off the impersonation of four different highly-placed government officials that served up false information to ABC News, which they turned around and fed to the public?
- Nope. Didn’t happen that way.
Okay, so what might have happened?
- Did government officials use this as a cover for disseminating propaganda intended to convince the public Iraq was involved, even though they had no idea what was going on?
- Maybe, but it seems a little far-fetched, considering that the truth might be uncovered at an inconvenient time and come back to bite them.
- Did ABC make up their informants after getting tips from Ivins?
- Now there’s a possibility. How much do I trust the journalistic integrity of ABC? Not a whole lot. Let’s mark that “strongly possible”.
- Did the government participate in the incident fully, guiding the development of propaganda and working to keep the investigation looking in the wrong place, while knowing that if that failed they could probably pin it on him and claim he was a crazy loner? And if worst came to worse, he could be found dead, so as not to turn evidence?
- Umm…He did turn up dead, didn’t he?
This should sound like fiction, but unfortunately it does not sound nearly enough like fiction. Is there anyone working in the current Administration who has no ethics, no limits, and no respect for the American public, someone who might have participated in something like this?
I don’t like “conspiracy theories” that dig deep and throw a wide net in an effort to explain something that has a very simple explanation. But this does not have a simple explanation.
The case is made that this is plausible. In the absence of an apology by ABC for making it all up, I’d have to put my money on the last one. And even if ABC did apologize I’d have to take their apology with a grain of salt, since we have to consider the possibility that they might have been knowingly in on it, too.
The History Channel
The only people who know anything about the subject are also the suspects.