What Was the Anthrax Attack Targeting Patrick Leahy Doing in the Iraq NIE?

Screen Shot 2015-03-19 at 1.27.47 PMAs Jason Leopold reports, the government recently released a newly declassified version of the 2002 NIE that justified the war with Iraq to Black Vault’s John Greenwald. Leopold has a useful overview of what the report includes. But I’m most appalled by this.



Perhaps the inset discussing the US-developed anthrax used to attack two Senators and members of the media purports to respond to questions raised by anonymous sources leaking the previous year. But it basically does nothing but suggest the possibility Iraq might have launched the attack, even while providing one after another piece of evidence showing why that was all but impossible.

Moreover, by the time this NIE was completed in October 2002, that deliberate leak had been silent for a almost a year.

That the rumor appeared again, secretly, in the Iraq NIE really ought to raise questions about a whole slew of unanswered questions about the anthrax attack: about why Judy Miller got fake anthrax, about why the FBI scoped its investigation to find only lone wolves and therefore not to find any conspirators (and still almost certainly hasn’t found the culprit), about why the first person framed for the attack also happened to be someone who knew of efforts to reverse engineer Iraq’s purported bioweapon labs.

No. No, Iraq wasn’t linked to the anthrax letters in fall 2001. It’s a simple answer. But nevertheless, the question got treated as a serious possibility when Bush Administration was trying to drum up war against Iraq.

The FBI’s Evidence Against the Genius Who Framed Elvis



























The panel itself was good. My high point came after Walsh had explained why the Defense had argued that bloggers might embarrass the nice people who had written leniency letters for Libby. I said, “well I was flattered we were considered such a threat. But there were at least three people who submitted letters who were implicated in the case. And I was shocked that I was one of only two or three people who demonstrated the many conflicts of those who wrote letters.”

But I also had several weird moments when we were talking about reporter’s privilege, when I was acutely aware that I was sitting between Judge Walton–who had forced journalists to reveal who had blamed Steven Hatfill for the anthrax case [see Jim White’s post for an update on the anthrax case]–and Walter Pincus–who said he had had eight or nine sources for his stories implicating Wen Ho Lee in security leaks. Walton made the very good point that if he hadn’t held AP reporter Toni Locy in contempt, then Hatfill might not have gotten the huge settlement he did for having had DOJ ruin his life. Walton’s comment suggested he had had to choose between reporter’s privilege or government impunity for attacking one of its citizens.

The collection of people sitting there had all touched on three major cases recently where the government had ruined civil servant’s lives and then hid behind reporter’s privilege to try to get away with it.

I had that in mind when I read this Jay Rosen piece, in which he suggests the behavior best incarnated by the Judy Miller-Michael Gordon aluminum tubes story created the need for Wikileaks.

The aluminum tube story, Rosen suggests, marks the moment when top journalists came to see their role as simply repeating what the government said.

This was the nadir. This was when the watchdog press fell completely apart: On that Sunday when Bush Administration officials peddling bad information anonymously put the imprimatur of the New York Times on a story that allowed other Bush Administration officials to dissemble about the tubes and manipulate fears of a nuclear nightmare on television, even as they knew they were going to war anyway.


Rosen argues that the NYT was not only on the wrong side of the facts with that story, but also on the wrong side of secrecy.

But it has never been recognized that secrecy was itself a bad actor in the events that led to the collapse, that it did a lot of damage, and that parts of it might have to go. Our press has never come to terms with the ways in which it got itself on the wrong side of secrecy as the national security state swelled in size after September 11th. (I develop this point in a fuller way in my 14-min video, here.)

The failures of skepticism back then, Rosen argues, creates the need or opportunity for Julian Assange today.

Radical doubt, which is basic to understanding what drives Julian Assange, was impermissible then. One of the consequences of that is the appeal of radical transparency today

Now, I think Rosen actually misses a key step here: from where the press sees itself as the neutral conduit of what the government is thinking, to where the press thinks its leaks from the government can stand-in for due process in the Anwar al-Awlaki case, and from there to Assange. Read more

Would Obama Issue First Veto to Protect Anthrax Whitewash?

Bloomberg is reporting that Office of Management and Budget head Peter Orszag has told the intelligence committees Obama will veto the intelligence authorization because–among other reasons–it calls for re-examining the FBI’s conspiracy theory-as-investigation summary finding that Bruce Ivins acted alone. (h/t fatster)



To sustain its claim that Ivins, rather than an accomplice, mailed the anthrax from Princeton, FBI engaged in addled speculation worthy of the Kennedy assassination. And now Obama is worried about “public confidence” in those addled speculations?

And shouldn’t there be an investigation of the investigation, at the least, because of the way FBI botched the investigation and framed Steven Hatfill?

If the investigation can’t bear any scrutiny, then I’d say there’s probably a good reason, and therefore a good reason to do an Inspector General investigation.

But I guess the President who advocates transparency is against that.

RawStory has a good summary of both this issue and the other targets of Obama’s veto threat: Congressional notification and GAO oversight of intelligence.

Anthrax Timeline, Two




Spring 2001: Ivins taken off Special Immunization Program

September 7, 2001: Ivins put back on Special Immunization Program






September 28: Ivins works late for 1 hour 42 minutes



October 1, 2001: Ivins works late for 20 minutes








October 12, 2001: Judy Miller gets fake anthrax letter








Read more

Yeah, What ABOUT that Anthrax Terrorist?

Call me crazy. But after viewing this very creepy exchange between Patrick Leahy and Michael Mukasey regarding the anthrax killer, I got the feeling that both of them know exactly who sent those anthrax-laden letters almost seven years ago.

Leahy uses the recent settlement between Hatfill and DOJ to raise the issue. As he raises it, he notes that he is privy to classified information about the anthrax killer, and because of that he has refrained from even discussing the case.

Leahy: I almost hate to get into the case of Steven Hatfill. I’ve refrained from discussing this, I’ve refused to discuss it with the press. I’ve told them some aspects of it I was aware of were classified so of course I could not discuss it but also, considering the fact that my life was threatened by an anthrax letter, two people died who touched a letter addressed to me I was supposed to open, I’m somewhat concerned.

What happened?

Mukasey: That case …

Then Leahy makes s curious statement: we’re paying Hatfill, which means that the guy who committed the crime is going free.

Leahy: We’re paying Hatfill millions of dollars, the indication being the guy who committed the crime went free.

I’ll let you sort through the logic of that sentence. But know that Mukasey doesn’t like it–not at all.

Mukasey: Well, um, I don’t understand, quote, the guy who committed the crime, unquote, to have gone free. What I do understand is…

Leahy: Nobody’s been convicted.

Mukasey: Not yet.

Leahy: And five people are dead.

Mukasey: Yes, um…

Leahy: And hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent.

Eventually, it seems that Muaksey concedes that he, too, has very specific knowledge about the case.

Mukasey: That case is under active investigation and I need to be very careful about what I say.

Which Leahy seems to confirm. Read more

$5.8 Million for Hatfill. $0 for Valerie Wilson.

Steven Hatfill will no longer have to complain that he can’t get a job anymore because he was once the leading suspect to be the anthrax terrorist. The government just signed a $5.8 million settlement with him, which includes a cash payment now and then $150,000 annual payments for the next 20 years.



Settlement documents were filed in federal court Friday. Both sides have agreed to the deal, according to the documents, and as soon as they are signed, the case will be dismissed.

Jeebus, between this and his federal monitoring contracts, former AG Ashcroft, who really really wanted you to believe the DOJ was closing in on a suspect in the still-unsolved anthrax case, is sure proving expensive for the US taxpayer, huh?

Meanwhile, Valerie Wilson, who had her career ruined by the Vice President and his lackey Scooter Libby, gets nothing in compensation.

Just to put some persepective on things, you know… 

Steven Hatfill’s Lawyer Asks Some Questions

I have very mixed feelings about Steven Hatfill’s suit against those who leaked that he was a person of interest in the anthrax investigation. Unlike his lawyer, I’m not sure the federal officials who spoke to reporters broke the law (indeed, you could argue that some of them were trying to tamp down suspicion about Hatfill). Further, I disagree with Judge Walton that there’s not a scintilla of evidence against Hatfill. Nevertheless, I think Hatfill’s lawyer, Mark Grannis, asks some worthwhile questions.

First, should people like Steven Hatfill — that is, people injured by government leaks — have a remedy at law, and if so, what? It is not clear how victims like Dr. Hatfill can ever be made whole, if leakers and reporters join in a conspiracy of silence. Senators should expect a better explanation on this point before they make it impossible for courts to enforce the federal Privacy Act.

Second, how can the arguments and behavior of journalists in a case such as this be reconciled with the profession’s self-image as the public watchdog, bringing accountability to government? The public officials who leaked investigative information to Ms. Locy broke the law, ruined an innocent man, and violated the public trust. Shouldn’t our watchdog bark or something?

The leakers should be fired, prosecuted, or both — and reporters who care about government accountability should be racingeach other to tell us who these miscreants are. The fact that they shut their mouths tight and run the other way suggests that the image of reporter-as-watchdog does not reflect the current place of journalism in society, whatever may have been true in the past.

Third, if the law prevents courts from ordering reporters to identify anonymous sources, what will prevent government officials from using the private information they keep on us for personal or political score-settling? What will prevent them from simply lying? What will prevent reporters from inventing anonymous sources who don’t actually exist?

Read more

The OTHER Sources for the Hatfill Stories

Over a month ago, I noted an LAT article naming three of the sources for the reporting that Steven Hatfill was a "person of interest" in the anthrax investigation. But it appears that Hatfill didn’t learn all of the sources–Judge Walton is preparing to hold at least one reporter in contempt for not revealing the sources for her Hatfill reporting.

A federal judge said Tuesday he will hold a former USA Today reporter in contempt if she continues refusing to identify sources for stories about a former Army scientist under scrutiny in the 2001 anthrax attacks.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said reporter Toni Locy defied his order last August that she cooperate with Steven J. Hatfill in his lawsuit against the government. Walton indicated he would impose a fine until she divulged her sources, but that he would take a few more days to decide whether to postpone the penalty as she pursues an appeal.

The judge is also considering whether to find former CBS reporter James Stewart in contempt.


Walton previously ordered five journalists to reveal all of their sources. Stewart and Locy refused, saying Hatfill was partly to blame for news stories identifying him as a suspect after his attorney provided details about the investigation.

The story if interesting for two reasons. First, it seems to pinpoint who shared their sources (after reportedly being released to do so) and who didn’t. Judge Walton compelled testimony from five journalists–Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman, Allan Lengel, Toni Locy, and James Stewart–and Locy and Stewart are the only two for whom he is considering contempt.

Also, as I pointed out last month, Hatfill now appears to have the sources for leaks that actually weren’t that damaging–stories that made it clear that Hatfill was just one of a number of people under suspicion for the attack.

Read more