Alleged Anthrax Attacker Commits Suicide
| Fri Aug. 1, 2008 7:59 AM PDT
Bruce E. Ivins, an anthrax scientist at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, died Tuesday at a hospital in Frederick, Maryland, after ingesting a massive dose of prescription Tylenol mixed with codeine. He was 62. According to the Los Angeles Times, he was among the nation's leading experts on the military uses of anthrax. A native of Lebanon, Ohio, Ivins received his doctorate in microbiology from the University of Cincinatti, had worked in the Fort Detrick laboratory for 18 years, and, in 2003, was honored with the Pentagon's highest civilian award for resolving technical problems afflicting the Army's anthrax vaccine. He sat on USAMRIID's protocol and animal rights committees. He lived in a small white house near the laboratory with his wife. And on Sundays, he played keyboards at his church. He also, according to the FBI, is the man responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Ivins' apparent suicide occurred after he learned that the Department of Justice was preparing to file criminal charges against him for mailing a series of anthrax-laden letters in fall of 2001 that killed five people, sickened another 17, interrupted mail service, and shut down a contaminated Senate building for several months.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
The anthrax investigation—dubbed "the largest and most complex" in FBI history, according to a spokesman—had become an embarrassment to the Bureau. For years it focused on Steven Hatfill, a onetime USAMRIID colleague of Ivins', named a "person of interest" by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002. In June, the Justice Department settled with Hatfill for $5.82 million. (Hatfill continues to press libel cases against the International Herald Tribune, the New York Times, and columnist Nicholas Kristof. He has already reached private settlements with Vanity Fair and Reader's Digest for their coverage of the case.) Amid speculation that all the attention paid to Hatfill and the alleged mishandling of evidence had caused the investigation to go cold, FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN last week that "in some sense, there have been breakthroughs" in the case. "I tell you we made great progress in the investigation, and it's in no way dormant," he continued.
In September 2006, having little to show for its efforts, the FBI replaced its lead investigator and, concluding that the strain of anthrax used in the attacks was not as sophisticated as first thought, broadened the search beyond Hatfill. The initial suspicion that the letters could only have come from a scientist expert in the production of military-grade anthrax, a field of about 30 individuals, seemed in doubt as agents looked farther afield for suspects. By last spring, however, it appeared that investigators had rounded a corner back to where they began. In March, FOX News reported that the Bureau was focusing on four suspects, among them "three scientists—a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist—linked to the research facility, known as USAMRIID."
Ivins had been cooperating with the FBI investigation for about a year, his lawyer, Paul F. Kemp, told the Associated Press. The Bureau's interest was raised by the revelation that Ivins had failed to report several anthrax contaminations at the Fort Detrick laboratory in the five months immediately following the 2001 attacks. Ivins wiped down several parts of the laboratory with bleach to kill errant anthrax spores, believing, he later told investigators, that samples sent there for testing had been improperly contained. (Ivins was among the scientists involved with testing anthrax samples obtained from letters sent to the Senate.) "In retrospect, although my concern for biosafety was honest and my desire to refrain from crying 'Wolf!' . . . was sincere, I should have notified my supervisor ahead of time of my worries about a possible breach in biocontainment," Ivins explained to Army investigators. "I thought that quietly and diligently cleaning the dirty desk area would both eliminate any possible [anthrax] contamination as well as prevent unintended anxiety at the institute." The Army elected not to press charges. (Read the results of its official investigation here.)
According to people familiar with the incident who spoke to the Los Angeles Times, Ivins acknowledged swabbing areas in and adjacent to his office for anthrax and applied bleach to kill spores, but was uncertain if he ever reswabbed to ensure there was no further contamination—an obvious and essential step in anthrax containment. A USAMRIID official told the Times that "Ivins might have hedged regarding reswabbing out of fear that investigators would find more of the spores inside or near his office."
Still, despite suspicions raised by the incident and the Justice Department's subsequent decision to charge Ivins as the anthrax attacker, the nature of the evidence against him in the case has not been disclosed. The Justice Department will decide in the next few days whether to close the anthrax investigation, but has yet to do so, leaving open the possibility that Ivins did not act alone. There has been speculation that one possible motive for anthrax attacks, assuming they were committed by a government scientist, might have been to win greater funding for anthrax-related research. And according to the Associated Press, the Justice Department planned to charge Ivins with mailing the anthrax letters in order to test anthrax drugs he had been developing.
Also possible, of course, is that Ivins—like Hatfill—is the wrong guy. His suicide comes at a curious moment in the investigation, but Ivins, according to those who knew him, had been suffering from severe depression for many months and had even checked into a treatment clinic last month, partially as a result of the strain placed on him by the attention he had been receiving from federal investigators. Kemp, his lawyer, issued a statement today, denying his client's involvement in anything sinister. "We are saddened by his death, and disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to defend his good name and reputation in a court of law," he said. "We assert his innocence in these killings, and would have established that at trial."
UPDATE 1: New evidence paints Ivins as a bit more than a sensitive biodefense researcher who flew into a depression at being suspected of horrible crimes. According to documents obtained by The Smoking Gun, Ivins' psychological counselor, Jean Duley of Comprehensive Counseling Associates, filed a restraining order against Ivins last week, claiming he has "a history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans, threats & actions towards therapist." The restraining order, granted by a judge, resulted from several threatening phone calls Ivins made last month. Duley writes in one of the documents that she had been scheduled to testify today before a federal grand jury in Washington, DC, with regard to Ivins' involvement in five capital murders. She further notes that his psychiatrist described him as "homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions."
UPDATE 2: Rep. Rush Holt, Jr. represents New Jersey's 12th District, from which one of the anthrax letters was mailed in 2001. He's a physicist and the former assistant director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory at Princeton University, the state's largest energy research facility. He's also a longtime critic of the FBI's handling of the anthrax case. (Read this response from the FBI to a critical letter it received from Holt in 2006.) When the FBI settled with Hatfill in June, Holt stated that he planned to press FBI Director Mueller to release more information on the investigation. I spoke with Holt this afternoon to get his reactions to the day's news and ask his thoughts about the FBI investigation. Some excerpts:
MJ: What do you think of today's revelations?
RH: However final this tragic turn is, whether or not it means that the case is closed, it doesn't change the fact that the investigation was not handled well and shouldn't have taken six years.
MJ: What went wrong with the FBI investigation?
RH: I watched the investigators take evidence. I've used the word sloppy before, and I'll use it again. They found anthrax in my office. They wiped the entire office with a couple of different wipes and they found anthrax. You'd think what they would do in a case like that is come back and check each inbox to see if you find anthrax there, so that there would be some way of tracing back how the anthrax entered the office. Similarly, once they knew there was anthrax at the Hamilton, New Jersey, mail sorting facility, you'd think they would trace back and find out exactly how the mail entered there. Well, seven months later, they found anthrax in a mailbox on Nassau Street in Princeton. I don't know what took them seven months to check that. They should have checked it the next day! And then it was reported in the newspaper that agents were on Nassau Street in Princeton the following summer asking if anybody remembered any unusual activity around that mailbox the previous fall.
MJ: Was the FBI forthcoming with you about where things stood?
RH: No, no, certainly not forthcoming. They did brief members of Congress, including me, early on in some detail. They claim there were leaks. If there were, I know nothing about it. And then they just clammed up. It seemed to me that they clammed up, wouldn't brief us, when it was apparent that the investigation wasn't going well. Now, I don't know whether that was why they refused to brief us, but it didn't inspire confidence.
Comments
Isn't it strange that the political dimension has been totally ignored?
Who was the anthrax sent to? Congressmen? The media? In the weeks after 9/11?
We know it didn't come from Al Qaeda. It came from the government.
We know that government officials were on Cipro before 9/11 happened.
This isn't rocket science. How freaking stupid are we?
Looks like someone's tinfoil beanie has slipped, and their head no longer has a TotalCoverup of aluminum to protect it from gov't mind control rays...
"How freaking stupid are we?"
That's a question that definitely calls for more study.
When would you be available for testing??
-- cue spooky Twilight Zone music --
They had to kill him (fake suicide) before he would talk about who put him up to it.
I see another tinfoil hat has slipped out of place.
You folks need to include a chinstrap in your design from now on.
if you totally write off the posibility of atleast some sort of governmental involvement you ave very naive.
The executive branch did lie to the general public and the united nations to justify a war, why couldn't they be capable of something like this.
I have to agree with the majority, even though I hate conspiracy theories. I find it regretful that a blogger has to compare concerned citizens to paranoid schizophrenics, but he or she has his or her own reasons.
The evidence, or lack thereof, points the finger at someone other than Ivins. So why would the government insist it's him? Hmm.
Submitted by Cole (not verified) on Sat Aug. 2, 2008 4:42 AM PDT.
No its true, just by making sarcastic jokes about people wearing tinfoil hats it disproves any and all 'conspiracy theories'. Every thing the U.S. government has ever done was under strict moral guidelines and only followed the most moral of intentions. Just ask Senator Wellstone.
Look at Jane Duley. In her recorded testimony posted on NYTimes she states she had been in her position six months. Coincedentally (?) this is how long she had been treating Ivins.
Also, how does someone overdose on tylenol 3 then die after being in the hospital for two days?
The truth shall set you free. God rest Dr Ivins soul.
Submitted by joe (not verified) on Sat Aug. 2, 2008 7:24 AM PDT.
i agree the gov.took him out,what a sorry ass society we are.
The anthrax scare was created as an excuse to install mail surveillance. When Hatfill wouldn't fall they pinned it on Ivins. The harassment Ivins endured are classic CIA / NSA tactics to discredit, disgrace and destroy. It reads like a bad remake of Arlington Road.
For years now the FBI has been a sloppy investigative bunch,the spys that took too long to snare, the terrorists that trained to fly planes into bldgs, and now this guy Ivins, or was it a third party? The surprise is that Ivins chose a clean way to go, when in fact he played with the deadly anthrax, supposidly.This senior vet hope to live long enough to get the final true story.
WAit, How does someone whom "has homical idealizations and intent since Grad. school" get the kindve security clearance to handle Bio-Chemical weapons at the highest level? How many other unstable sceintists are there out there with access to these types of weapons? Once again, I get a crummy feeling about the Governments ability to safeguard it's citizens.Honestly.
'She further notes that his psychiatrist described him as "homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions."'
So, this "counselor" [credentials unstated] having obtained access to another person's psychiatric records, demonstrates a complete lack of professionalism in revealing "facts" from these records? You're sure there isn't a proposed bridge sale involved here somewhere? Just who is this "Jean Duley"? Her application for the restraining order looks like it was written by an 8th grader on the school bus, and it obviously was filed with knowledge that Ivins was to be charged - so just how did she get that info?
Many, many puzzling disconnects here about this.
All of this reported on WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM
THE HIDDEN ANTHRAX LETTERS SUSPECT
The FBI knows of a man who was caught entering the lab where the Anthrax used in the letters was kept, after he had been fired for a racially motivated attack on a co-worker. So, why is the FBI wasting its time with Steven Hatfill?
News Story identifying Dr. Philip Zack as the man caught entering the Anthrax storage area at Fort Detrick without authorization.
In this story, it is reported that Dr. Zack was caught on a security tape making an unauthorized entry into the Anthrax storage area.
Foreign press picks up story that Anthrax letters were sent by American bio-war scientist ... and that the FBI is dragging its feet on the case.
FBI'S PRIME SUSPECT ON ANTHRAX LETTERS IS JEWISH! No wonder they were dragging their feet.
Salon's story of the attempt to frame Dr. Ayaad Assaad, an Egyptian, for the Anthrax letters.
So it looks like all we are getting is another big lie reported by our government!
Submitted by Shootingsparks (not verified) on Sat Aug. 2, 2008 11:48 PM PDT.
The Jewish False Flag 911 Anthrax Terrorist Attack Exposed (sort of)
Psychotic Zionist Jew Bruce E. Ivins, who allegedly committed suicide Tuesday was on the verge of being arrested for 5 counts of capital murder in association the anthrax attacks against some members of the media and government was apparently part of a wider government plot, likely in coordination with the rabid PNAC Zionists who dominated Bush's cabinet and the Office f Special Plans, cooked up America's current middl-east misadventures...Some motivated by the Israel project, Zionism at large, or simple greed and disregard for the cost in human life. I suppose it depends on your definition of human, no??
As to who in government to look to for answers, according to Glenn Greenwald in yesterdays Salon.com, the folks at ABC News might be the ones to start asking, for example who from the WH gave them bogus info, which they eagerly repeated?
To subhuman asshat Mr. Bruce Ivans, i will let his words speak for him, may he rot in hell...
"By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."
Bruce E. Ivins, Jewish 911 anthrax terrorist
First the anthrax was called weapons grade, then it was later identified as being crude. Are we to assume that the anthrax is now considered weapons grade again, considerng that it came from Ft. Detrick? What a load of BS. The only missing pieces are the U and the H. There's the identity of your real terrorist.
Read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert and you'll get a good education on how this type of thing is OFTEN political.
A lot of investigation needs to be done quickly on Jean Duley and Comprehensive Counseling - before another "suicide" happens.
Yep.
A couple of news reports (we all know how accurate the media isn't) and we go STRAIGHT to a Conspiracy Theory.
Don't Confuse Me With A Lack Of Evidence. My "Mind" Is Made Up!
Your Tinfoil Beanies crack me up!!
So who is more deluded, those who believe every disclaimer issued by the Bush administration, or those who've had enough of the lies? My guess is that STRAIGHT is sitting in NRC headquarters and that his only job is disinformation. He certainly seems disinformed to me, so I guess he's one in this country still able to find a job that suits.
Have a little faith. We'd never try to fool you smarty-pants. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/04/anthrax/
The Anthrax scare, in my opinion, is all a part of an attempt to gain control of the Americans and further erode rights. I came to this conclusion when I was attempting to express my opinions on the Bush Administration to various members of Congress. One reply I received back from a member of Congress came to me several months after I had mailed my information. The letter from that Congressman stated that mail sent to his office in Washington took a very long time now because due to the Anthrax problems of the past, all mail had to be carefully inspected. Of course, I thought, someone in our government is trying to know exactly what the citizens are expressing to their representatives. Many Congressman never replied, and I believe it was because they never received my correspondence. Something is very, very rotten within our government and we need to persist, until we get to the bottom of this.
This case has lots of aspects. The knee-jerk "nothing is ever done secretly" crowd is quite representative of the naivete of many Americans. They automatically assume our bloodthirsty government is always innocent. Always. Facts be damned. Contradictions be damned.
At any rate, a far more intresting discussion is going on at Gleen Greenwald's blog. Clearly, the Anthrax attacks originated from anthrax in the U.S.; the notes were false leads planted to blame violent Muslims; the press, like ABC/Jennings, printed all the accusations against Sadaam/Al Quada uncritically, from 'government sources.' Who were those government sources?
Now one of the key researchers at Detrick shows up dead, after another had been acquitted. There is even a group of scientists at Detrick called the "Camel" something, that harrassed middle eastern scientists.
Knowledgabel bio-weapon scientists say Ivins didn't have the technology to produce this Anthrax, only Dugway Proving grounds did. And the person accusing him has a history of drug and alcohol abuse. And the 'government sources' were all concentrated at Detrick.
At the very least, these anthrax attacks were cooked up by someone in the U.S. to blame Sadaam Hussein. The question is who cooked them up?
And who gained if Ivins died? The government has the technology to bring down planes, to kill without trace, to fake suicide. If you don't believe it, you are living in a fools paradise.
concerned citizens to paranoid schizophrenics, this is what the MILITANT Evil coworker spread around.This guy is not guilty.
That therapist is not quilified.
If you were getting accused of something that horrific and you did not do it how would you act?
Everyone who claims to be an American Citizens should come out and tell the complete truth
about the period before 911
and those days after and THE BIG LIE TO START THE WAR.
This country needs truthful counter terrorism efforts.
Not such sham behavior Where no one knows who did what when.
Mr.Bruce E Ivins was a Miltary scientist at the U.S.
Army Medical Research for 18
years and,in 2003,he was honored with the Pentagon's highest award.he was leading very normal life & was active in his community even after he received the call about the accusation, he was scared like anyone would do.he had been cooperating with the investigaters and suddenly he
is a BAAAd Man !It's fishy to me becaue nobody is talking about Mr. Philip Zack who's Zionist anti-Arabs & anti-Muslims who got himself in troubles before & for the same reason.PEOPLE,He was cought on camera entering the storage area where the anthrax was kept,and without authorization because he was not allowed to enter the building at all.Here's my sources to read it and make up your mind.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/frameup.html?q=frameup.html
It is funny how Duley has had one or two DUI convictions, barely knows this guy and she is in dire financial straits and she makes the accusation the HE is mentally unstable.
Also, Hatfield was the SECOND incorrect target of the FBI.
The first letter was mailed on 9/11/01.
GEORGE: Hey DICK, gotta great idea. Now would be a great time to send some ANTHRAX to that damn LIBRAL Leahy. Wadda ya think?
DICK: Hmmmmmm....
I don't buy it either. Anyone that believes Mr. Ivins was responsible is just as naive as those that still believe Sadaam was threat to America. Therefore, the real person responsible for these anthrax attacks still walks among us; just like the Devil.
My guess is that STRAIGHT is sitting in NRC headquarters and that his only job is disinformation. He certainly seems disinformed to me..
STRAIGHT doesn't believe a word that comes out of Dubya's moronic mouth.
STRAIGHT didn't offer any observations beyond how humorous it is that so many news stories bring out the 'Black Helicopter' bunch.
STRAIGHT didn't suggest you believe anything in particular, did he?
But what STRAIGHT wonders is; if Dubya's boys had something they wanted to cover up in this anthrax mess, why they wouldn't just stop talking about it, and treat it like they have Osama Bin Laden?
Just shut up and the public will forget all about him.
But it isn't funny STRAIGHT. The power to kill your enemies, if indeed that's what this was all about, means we no longer live in a democracy. There's nothing humorous about that. If it was intimidation, that also signals our democracy's demise. No one on this blog really knows what happened. But just like 9/11, there are just so many bizarre elements here that don't add up. Sometimes life is messy; straight, common-sense answers just aren't forthcoming. But this strains credulity. And your cheap insults to those who suspect a conspiracy only serve to keep us in the dark. Believe or disbelieve as you see fit, but don't mock those who question the official line. More times than not, the official line is not the whole truth. And therein lies the rub.
ivins was seeing govt phychiatrists and this duley woman was allegedly working for ft detrick. i find this whole thing very interesting. did the fbi screw up and drive this man who may well have been innocent to suicide or did they actually get the right guy this time?
Hey "oops"? Why is it that you neocons can never debate the actual facts? All you can ever do is result to the same lame old attempts to discredit anyone who believes the government might have a less than wholesome agenda. And it's always the same old insults: "You need a tinfoil hat," or "Oh, another conspiracy theorist." Well, how about the "Northwoods" documents where the Joint Chiefs had signed off on a numbers of plans that involved killing American citizens or soldiers to get public support for invading Cuba? The only thing that stopped it was a President with a spine and some morals: Kennedy. What about the recent plans revealed by Seymore Hersh where Bush and advisors were thinking about painting ships to look like Iranian PT boats, and then when an American ship came by, start a firefight? Luckily, that plan was rejected, but it shows the desperation to start a war with Iran that the Pentagon is against because they know it will hurt us worse than Iran, by probably starting WW3 and driving gas prices up over 12 dollars a gallon over-night. You make me sick. And you probably love war, but can't fight your own way out of a paper bag! Maybe you should try watching a real news show, like DemocracyNow, and give FOX news a break, like I'd like to give you.
Hey "oops"? Why is it that you neocons can never debate the actual facts?
Hey Alan, why is it that anyone who believes people who see a conspiracy behind every tree in the forest are wackos is automatically a "neocon"?
FACT is, I personally despise Bush, and have never voted for a Repub presidential candidate in my 36 years of voting.
FACT is, we hardly HAVE any FACTS to debate, other than the FACT that some people can never accept that the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
When some FACTS come around that indicate Dubya was behind the whole thing, I'll be more than happy to support his impeachment, arrest, conviction and execution. But until that happens, we can better spend our time pressuring Pelosi, Reid et. al to take Kucinich's articles of impeachment seriously and not just make a window show out of burying them in committee.
I'm certainly inclined to agree with STRAIGHT. The anthrax story had all but disappeared from the public's memory, just like Bin Laden. What possible good would come to Bush from pulling a stunt like the Tinfoil Beanie Brigade thinks happened NOW??
Christopher, it's not funny. But I don't feel I've lived in a 'democracy' since, oh, 1963, when Kennedy the 1st was shot. I was in 6th grade.
Of course, I've read enough history to know that it started long before that.
At least, they allow us to chat. But to hold or actually influence power? No way, ever.
Oops: I don't call everyone that starts in with the "tinfoil hat" business a neocon, but a lot of them are, and at least it made you feel like what it feels like to be pigeon-holed or stereotyped. I'm happy to hear you're not one. And I do not see conspiracies behind every tree. Most of the people that posted here think there's a lot that doesn't make sense with this case. Also, I believe Bush/Cheney and the current regime are truly evil.
I do agree with you, however, that pressuring Pelosi to take Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment seriously is more important..but you seem to be making a contradiction. You say, if this current thing is proved, then you would support impeachment, etc, of Bush--but then go on to say that taking Kucinich's Artciles of Impeachment is more important..? Which is it? Do you support his impeachment or not? He doesn't even need to have had a hand in this to deserve impeachment, and, IMO, conviction for murder of our soldiers, as Bugliosi wants.
At least, they allow us to chat. But to hold or actually influence power? No way, ever.
We don't seem to have the guts to exert any influence on power.
We keep voting for candidates we don't really like, because we keep responding to the "fear the other guy!" tactic the two wings of the Oligarchy Party use on us, election after election. So WE elect the candidates THEY want in office. It's working just the way they want, so why would they change anything?
Until voters show a little backbone, and tell the a-holes to go to hell if that's the best they've got to offer, actually vote for the BEST candidate on the ballot (instead of one of the two 'evils'), usually an independent or 3rd party choice for most voters, then we'll keep getting what we've been getting.
Bottom line: Why SHOULD the a-holes in power give us any better candidates when we keep electing the crap they put on their ticket, knowing as we do that there'll be little-to-no difference in what happens once the names on the office doors change?
By th way, to answer your question about what Bush might have to gain, I think the question is what he might have to lose..Say, if this went to court, and Ivin said that government agents had come and taken some anthrax, or if he knew something damning..I believe it's quite possible that the whole anthrax thing was a case of false-flag terrorism, another excuse to bomb Iraq.
...at least it made you feel like what it feels like to be pigeon-holed or stereotyped...
LOL. I get pigeon-holed and stereotyped all the time! Sometimes I'm called a neocon, othertimes I'm a liberal-socialist. Depends on who's doing the pigeon-holing.
All that ever proves to me is that people can't break their own minds out of the bi-polar political mold. "If you don't agree with US on THIS, then you MUST be one of THEM".
I'm an independent, with a strong libertarian streak.
You say, if this current thing is proved, then you would support impeachment, etc, of Bush--but then go on to say that taking Kucinich's Artciles of Impeachment is more important..? Which is it?
No contradiction.
I support his impeachment for what we KNOW he's already done, and that's why I brought it up, as more important at THIS time. And if someone turns up evidence that he had a Nixon-like hand in this anthrax business, I'd like to see it go much farther than impeachment. But until that evidence comes up, let's work with the Real Things we've already got to work with.
I agree with you Dempublicans. Unfortunately, when they have the ability to steal elections through these electronic voting machines, one wonders if, even if the people did elect someone from a different party, if the powers would be would even recognize it. There's also the problem of the electoral college, which is rarely discussed: the public doesn't actually elect our politicians. Also, usually, IMO, the democrats are the lesser of two evils, and voting for independents, etc. often gives the election to the republicans. The system is rotten to the core. And most Americans don't even vote, or even know the 3 Branches of their government. They have succeeded quite well in dumbing down most Americans. I don't think there's anything that will stop the complete collapse of our economy and democratic republic (what remains of it) at this point. With the weapons they now have, it would take all 330,000,000 of us to stand up, and be willing to die for liberty. Most people are still more concerned with what Paris Hilton is doing than what's going on in our country..they only car when it directly affects them, as with the gas prices. Unforunately, people don't realize, even if the will were there, the time, money, and resources it would take to transform our infrastructure to support alternative energies. We got the warning 30 years ago when oil production peaked in the U.S. We needed to start then.
I hope I'm being overly pessimistic, but from my research, I don't think so.
voting for independents, etc. often gives the election to the republicans
Many people think, with some justification, that Clinton was elected both times due to Perot's participation. So the knife cuts both ways.
Should this election be close, then Nader or Barr could easily be the deciding factor, but again, when the most prominent change is likely the names on the office doors, SO WHAT??
If one Oligarchy wing or the other keeps seeing it happen to them, MAYBE they'll get the message that there IS some dissatisfaction among the voters. MAYBE they'll take action to prevent it from spreading.
Really, what have we got to lose by trying the peaceful means of voting for someone different?
More than one nation has risen up to throw out the crooks because of a belief that their elections were tampered with. I don't think Americans are any less courageous than other nations, if it ever comes to that.
oops: Well, it sounded like a contradiction to me. But I accept your clarification. But you shouldn't go around talking about tinfoil hats when you don't know any more than these other people. It's offensive, and I think there's good reason, from this regime's record, to suspect anything they do. I am familiar with Occam's razor, but I do not see the official story as being the most likely. See, you and I probably have more in common than not, but your comment about tinfoil hats, even though not directed at me, upset me--because that's the tactic used by the guilty when there's overwhelming evidence (not that there is in this case) of foul play: since they can't legitimately argue the inconsistencies, they always resort to the "you're just a conspiracy theorist" or "tinfoil hat" comments. I recently asked someone what the definition of conspiracy was, and he said it was when you believed something crazy. That's how bad it's gotten. The actual definition is: a secret plan to commit a crime. Which makes, for example, the "official" story of 9/11 as much of a conspiracy theory as any alternative explanations. I don't claim to know what happened on that day, but I know the official story is as absurd as some of the wilder "conspiracy theories."
DemoPublicans: You make some good points. Unfortunately, i don't thin we could survive, for instance, a single McCain term--not that Obama is going to be much better, but definitely the lesser of two evils. As far as Americans having courage: it's not so much about courage as it is about knowledge. Americans are far less informed than most other citizens in other countries. A recent poll found that only 1 in every 3 people, I believe it was, could name the 3 branches of Government, and scored equally bad in other areas..like 48% of Americans believe the president can legally suspend the Constitution..although, with the way Bush has acted, that's not so surprising. I do think we've grown a little soft, too--not all of us, but a good percentage. Also, I think there's a new willingness upon the part of the government (not that they've ever shied away from crushing skulls)to just kill, or even torture, people who may not even be going for outright revolution, but are just powerful speakers, or able to organize the masses..we can't stand up to the kind of weapons they have now..like that "Pain- ray" that causes the moisture beneath one's epidermis to boil?
Unfortunately, we are a country controlled by corporate interests. Mussolini said: "Fascism should really be called "corporatism" because it is the perfect merger of Corporation(s) and the State. This is far closer to the kind of government we now have than the democratic republic our founders intended.
