1. For over a decade, Army scientists at Dugway have been making weapons-grade anthrax that is “virtually identical” to the anthrax used in the attacks.

2. The anthrax used in the 2001 attacks was extremely concentrated, with a trillion spores per gram. The Dugway anthrax had a similar concentration.

3. The FBI was increasingly focused on US government bioweapons research programs as the source of the deadly anthrax.

4. Both the lab in Utah and the lab in Ohio received anthrax samples from the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, although USAMRIID deals only with wet anthrax and ships it wet.

5. The investigation was focused on the Dugway anthrax, and Dugway was described as the only facility that was known to be weaponizing anthrax.

6. One FBI official said that the CIA’s anthrax was “the best lead we have at this point.”

7. Army officials said that Fort Detrick did not have the equipment for weaponizing anthrax.

The FBI has never explained what became of this initial focus on the labs in Utah and Ohio. Instead, after the death of Fort Detrick anthrax researcher Bruce Ivins in July 2008, the FBI attempted to make the case that Ivins was the murderer and all other suspects had been cleared of suspicion.

Since Ivins’ death, the media have, with very few exceptions, passively swallowed the line dispensed by the FBI, and have acted as little more than stenographers in parroting the hollow arguments presented by the FBI that Ivins is guilty.

On December 12, 2001, The Baltimore Sun published a seminal article by Scott Shane that clearly laid out just how strong the evidence was against the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. Subtitled “Organisms made at a military laboratory in Utah are genetically identical to those mailed to members of Congress,” Shane’s article also includes this eyebrow-raising line: “Scientists familiar with the anthrax program at Dugway described it to The Sun on the condition that they not be named.”

Apparently Shane has forgotten all that he reported seven years ago. Now with The New York Times, Shane’s latest piece, published January 4, 2009, raises troubling questions about the independence of The Times, and the memory hole that Shane must have used to shunt away all that he once knew about the case the FBI code-named Amerithrax.

Shane calls his 5,200-word article “the deepest look so far at the investigation.” Titled “Portrait Emerges of Anthrax Suspect’s Troubled Life,” it is primarily a hatchet job on Bruce Ivins. Filled with innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations, the purpose of the article is clearly to solidify the perception that Ivins was the killer, and to pooh-pooh the widely held belief that the anthrax came from a CIA or military lab in Utah or Ohio.

Shane dismisses these beliefs breezily, stating: “The Times review found that the FBI had disproved the assertion, widespread among scientists who believe Dr. Ivins was innocent, that the anthrax might have come from military and intelligence research programs in Utah or Ohio.” Not a single piece of evidence is presented to back up this sweeping claim.

Halfway through his article, Shane springs another shocker on us. “By early 2004, FBI scientists had discovered that out of 60 domestic and foreign water samples, only water from Frederick, Maryland, had the same chemical signature as the water used to grow the mailed anthrax.”

Really? Do FBI scientists think that anthrax researchers go to the kitchen sink for the water they use to grow the anthrax? According to Wikipedia, biochemistry labs use only highly purified water, such as double-distilled. Distilled water is created by boiling water and collecting the steam. To obtain double-distilled water, the process is done twice, so that all impurities and minerals are removed. Distilled water has the same chemical signature, namely none, no matter where in the world it originates.

It is unprecedented to have a major development in a high profile case go unreported for a full five years. Not only has the FBI never before mentioned this so-called discovery about the signature of the water, but when they were specifically asked if anything could be learned from the water, they said no.

The question came up on August 18, 2008, when the FBI held a science briefing to follow up on the highly publicized August 6 press conference by DOJ attorney Jeff Taylor. The science briefing was hosted by Dr. Vahid Majidi, Assistant Director of the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate.

Dr. Majidi was asked: “In your looking at the elemental and chemical properties, could you tell anything about the water that was used to filter this anthrax, and did that do you any good?”

Dr. Majidi replied: “No. No.”

Yet here we are, five months later, with Scott Shane telling us that the FBI has known since 2004 that the anthrax was grown near Fort Detrick, because of the chemical signature of the water.

Beyond these outrageous claims, Shane’s article is busy assassinating Bruce Ivins’ character. We have Nancy Haigwood saying of Ivins “he did it,” for no apparent reason other than she doesn’t like him and thinks he’s odd. She also thinks Ivins vandalized her house 27 years ago and impersonated her. No reason is given for why she believes these things.

Shane editorializes heavily. He charges that Ivins was “chipper” even as five people were dead or dying of anthrax inhalation, and was relishing his moment in the spotlight. No evidence is presented for how Shane reached these conclusions about Ivins.

Words Shane uses to describe Ivins (including quotes from others) are: corny, dour, scary, provocative, emotionally laden, thin-skinned, aggressive, goody two shoes, very sensitive, creepy, possessing an unnerving hubris, stressed, depressed, rude, sarcastic, nasty, devious, jumpy and agitated.

We find out that Ivins had been a nerdy, awkward teenager, was not popular in high school, and was still bitter about this.

He liked to eat a mixture of peas, yogurt and tuna for lunch and wore outdated bell-bottoms, practices that, according to Shane, got him labeled an “oddball.” The words odd, oddball or oddities appear five times in Shane’s article.

The final reference, regarding “a man whose oddities, for many people, made the FBI’s anthrax accusation more plausible,” tips Shane’s hand. His constant harping on Ivins oddness betrays the poverty of the FBI’s case, which Shane acknowledges has “yielded nothing more persuasive than a strong hunch” that Ivins was the killer.

Fortunately for many of us, being odd is not a crime.

But was Ivins odd? The Frederick News Post published a letter from Amanda Lane on August 10, 2008 that includes: “I want to shout from the mountain tops that Bruce was the kind of man we look up to . . . He was a decorated scientist and the humblest of men who didn’t use his title as a status symbol. He picked up a mop or emptied the trash without a moment’s hesitation. If he thought you were having a bad day he would offer candy or a catchy tune to cheer you up. If someone had to stay late to accomplish a task, Bruce would work with you so that the task would get completed faster.

“He was not the greatest athlete, but he was the best cheerleader present at every game to support his friends. I will truly miss his good humor, as there are few people in life who measure up to this man. I hope that he knew how much joy he brought to my life and others around him. If I learned anything from Bruce, it was to enjoy life and to always smile. His friendship brightened so many lives. I hope that Americans will remember Bruce for the funny and compassionate person that he was, because that is all Bruce knew how to be.”

Although Shane does mention that Ivins’ colleagues cherished him, the implication is that they didn’t really know him, as “he hid from them a shadow side of mental illness, alcoholism, secret obsessions and hints of violence.”

The New York Times has published a hit piece, devoid of incriminating facts, more gossip than journalism. Shane’s article raises disturbing questions about the relationship between The New York Times and the US government. What happened to the FBI’s original focus on the CIA and Army labs? Who is behind the drive to pin the attacks on a dead man who possessed neither the means nor the motive to carry them out? And why is The Times acting as a PR arm for those with an agenda that has nothing to do with journalism?

He who defines the language defines the parameters of the debate, and so far the conspirators are winning. They have succeeded in imbuing the moniker “conspiracy theorist” with such intensely negative connotations that even most conspiracy theorists—such as 9/11 truth activists—tie themselves in knots to avoid earning that label.

Is there anything wrong with having theories? Of course not. Knowledge progresses through scientists proposing a certain hypothesis (or theory) and then testing to see if it holds up. It doesn’t mean they are flying blind, untethered by facts. They use the facts they already know to create theories about things that are still unknown.

Is there anything wrong with having theories about a conspiracy? Is it akin to having theories about leprechauns, poltergeists or Bigfoot? Do conspiracies exist only in the realm of fantasy or the occult?

Definitely not. There are dozens of vast conspiracies that have been validated by historians. Wikipedia lists 27 “proven conspiracies, some of which were not the subject of any widespread speculation until they were exposed.”

That is, they used to. The list of 27 proven conspiracies is in my article on the back page of the June issue of the Rock Creek Free Press, exactly as copied from Wikipedia in May 2008. That list of “proven historical conspiracies” was removed from Wikipedia on June 7, 2008, just a few days after the June issue of the Creek hit the streets of DC.

But I digress.

High level government conspiracies definitely happen. So what exactly is wrong with having a theory about a vast plot to deceive us?

From the point of view of the conspirators, plenty. They cannot succeed unless their under-handed dealings remain well out of sight. If the details of Operation Mockingbird became widely known, no one would read or watch any news from the mainstream media anymore, and their effort to control public opinion would fail.

Those in charge of the cover-ups had very good reasons for launching an all out attack on conspiracy theorists, and due to Operation Mockingbird, they are able to insert their memes into TV shows, news articles, books, movies, songs, greeting cards and comic books. Without quite realizing how it happened, the population adopts the belief desired by the conspirators: that those who suspect conspiracies are deficient human beings in every respect. Based on my own exposure to the MSM, I could easily conclude that conspiracy theorists are:

• lonely, socially inept losers
• intellectually bankrupt, oblivious to evidence
• immature, still living at home with their parents
• unattractive to the opposite sex, unable to find love or sex
• don’t bathe or change clothes regularly
• have a tenuous grip on sanity, may be mentally ill
• paranoid

No wonder no one wants to be considered a conspiracy theorist!

Many truth activists have reacted to this demonization by avoiding discussing theories, and insisting they are just asking questions. Fomer Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura gave a lengthy news conference in Arizona on 9/11/08 about the anomalies in the government’s story about 9/11, and he used this tactic. When asked his opinion about what was going on, he insisted he was just asking questions.

This approach is dishonest and ultimately unproductive. It is disingenuous to pretend you don’t have any theories just to avoid the dreaded “CT” label. It is also nearly impossible not to have theories about something you have studied extensively; I don’t know a single 9/11 truth activist who doesn’t.

It is also unproductive because we hold back from saying the things we know to be true. Why should we only ask questions when we know some of the answers? Questions require a lot of our audience. They require listeners to come up with the answers themselves, something not everyone has the time or inclination to do. We should state what we know with confidence.

Another defensive measure employed by some in the truth movement (such as author David Ray Griffin) is to point out that the government’s story is also a conspiracy theory. But that dog won’t hunt.

For although it is technically true that any crime involving more than one person is a conspiracy, in general vernacular a “conspiracy theorist” is someone who has a theory about a very specific kind of conspiracy: one operating at the highest levels of our government, or above and outside our government. No one would use the term about someone who suspects their neighbors of planning a bank heist. For all the symmetry and beauty of Griffin’s arguments, they are not persuasive to the man on the street.

The more destructive effect of Griffin’s efforts is that it gives tacit assent to the meme that to be a conspiracy theorist is a bad thing, something we want to paint our enemies as being. By trying to squirm away from the label, we only create the perception that we agree that it is a shameful thing to be, and can be hurt by that label.

Let’s look at how two other groups, who were victims of vicious stereotypes, reclaimed the words used to attack them. Those words are “nigger” and “queer,” and today those words no longer carry the punch they once did. African Americans reclaimed “nigger” by using it to refer to each other, as did homosexuals, who took back the epithet “queer.”

Borrowing from their example, I hereby announce: I AM A CONSPIRACY THEORIST! I’m proud to be one of the clear-eyed Americans who have woken up and see how badly we’ve been lied to. I’m part of a group that includes the smartest, most courageous, selfless, free-thinking and hard working people I’ve ever met. I reject those CIA engineered stereotypes that say that I and my fellow truthers are not the bold, brave, cutting edge change agents that we are.

Put it on a bumper sticker and shout it from the rooftops. Say it loud and say it proud.

There is a conspiracy and I have a theory about it!

Ivins had nothing to do with the 2001 anthrax attacks. The attacks were almost certainly carried out by the only group that had the means to produce the highly weaponized anthrax in the letters: the CIA, its contractor Battelle Memorial Institute of West Jefferson, Ohio., and the Army at Dugway in Utah.

The DOJ-FBI frame-up of Ivins rests heavily upon the claim of new advances in genetic testing which supposedly prove that the killer anthrax could have come only from Ivins’ flask.

Jeff Taylor stated: ‘The FBI sought out the best experts in the scientific community and, over time, four highly sensitive and specific tests were developed that were capable of detecting the unique qualities of the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks.’

This is an outright lie. No special tests were required to assess the genetic heritage of the Ames strain in the envelopes. The Washington Post reported on December 16, 2001 that ‘only five laboratories so far have been found to have spores with perfect genetic matches to those in the Senate letters.’

The distinguishing feature of the anthrax that killed five people in 2001 is not related to its genes. What made that anthrax unique was that it was highly weaponized. Anthrax is a common pathogen found in the soil in many places. It doesn’t become lethal unless produced in such a way that it behaves like a gas, floating easily in the air and deep into a victim’s lungs.

The anthrax used in the attacks was beyond cutting edge. Donald A. Henderson, former assistant secretary for the Office of Public Health Preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services, told Science magazine: ‘It just didn’t have to be that good’ to be lethal.

Why the killer anthrax was so deadly

1. Precisely sized particles-1.5 to 5 microns. Anything smaller is exhaled, anything larger tends to get caught either in the nose or in the cilia in the trachea.

2. Coated with silica. The silica acted as a buffer, preventing spores from adhering to one another. The silica on the attack anthrax rested on a thin layer of polymerized glass, which is a highly advanced technique for coating anthrax spores. To do this required a ’spray dryer,’ the cheapest of which sells for $50,000. The lyophilizer in Ivins’ lab is used to dry anthrax, but can NOT be used to coat the spores with silica. Ivins did not have a spray dryer.

3. Highly concentrated. The letter to Senator Daschle’s office contained two grams of anthrax, about the weight of a dime. Each gram contained a trillion pure spores of anthrax, or enough to kill 200 million people.

4. Electro-statically charged. The slight charge on each spore caused it to repel the other spores and spread out into the room after the envelope was opened.

It is these attributes of the anthrax-not its genetic heritage-which made it so unique and so lethal.

The source of the anthrax was clear in 2001

US Attorney Jeff Taylor characterized a flask in Dr. Ivin’s possession as ‘the murder weapon.’ But a Dec. 12, 2001 article in the Baltimore Sun stated:

For nearly a decade, U.S. Army scientists at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah have made small quantities of weapons-grade anthrax that is virtually identical to the powdery spores used in the mail attacks that have killed five people.

The article refers to Dugway as ‘the only site in the United States where weapons-grade anthrax has been made in recent years,’ and also includes this:

Dugway’s production of weapons-grade anthrax, which has never before been publicly revealed, is apparently the first by the U.S. government since President Richard M. Nixon ordered the U.S. offensive biowarfare program closed in 1969.

The following day, the Washington Post echoed the Sun article:

An Army biological and chemical warfare facility in Utah has been quietly developing a virulent, weapons-grade formulation of anthrax spores since at least 1992.

On Dec 16, 2001, the Washington Post corroborated the Sun report by stating that ‘Dugway is the only facility known in recent years to have processed anthrax spores into the powdery form that is most easily inhaled,’ also stating, ‘Army officials in Washington said yesterday that Fort Detrick does not have the equipment for making dried anthrax spores.’

On September 4, 2001, the New York Times explained:

Over the past several years, the United States has embarked on a program of secret research on biological weapons … even the [Clinton] White House was unaware of their full scope. The projects, which have not been previously disclosed … have been embraced by the Bush administration, which intends to expand them.

These projects involve the CIA, Battelle Memorial Laboratories in West Jefferson, Ohio, and the Army at Dugway in Utah.

[T]he need to keep such projects secret was a significant reason behind President Bush’s recent rejection of a draft agreement to strengthen the germ-weapons treaty, [the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention,] which has been signed by 143 nations.

Had the treaty been strengthened, the Dugway and West Jefferson sites would have been subject to international inspections. It is important to note that Battelle not only operates its own labs in West Jefferson, but also is contracted by the Army to operate the labs at Dugway.

The DOJ-FBI news conference on August 6, 2008 was a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the secret anthrax weaponization projects by pinning the crimes on a dead man. So far the DOJ-FBI have succeeded in covering up the real perpetrators of the crime, concealing the illegal weapons program, and persuading many that it is time to close the investigation.

Dr. Ivins was an immunologist; he had neither the knowledge nor the equipment to produce the silica-coated, electro-statically charged, 1.5 to 5 micron sized, one trillion spore per gram anthrax that was mailed to Senators Leahy and Daschle.

The DOJ has made much of the fact that Ivins worked 45 extra hours in September and October of 2001. Yet when the FBI attempted to reverse engineer the weaponized anthrax from the attacks, they admitted after a year of trying that they were unable to come up with a product as potent as that in the letters.

Scientists doubt FBI’s story

As far back as October 28, 2002, the Washington Post reported that bio-weapons experts were skeptical about the view that the anthrax in the letters could have come from a lone nut:

‘In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I’m one of them,’ said Richard O. Spertzel, former deputy commander of USAMRIID (the Army bio-defense facility at Detrick). ‘And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good.’

Writing in the New York Times on Aug. 9, 2008, Gerry Andrews, an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Wyoming, described the envelopes’ contents as:

“a startlingly refined weapons-grade anthrax spore preparation, the likes of which had never been seen before by personnel at Fort Detrick.’ He continued: ‘It is extremely improbable that this type of preparation could ever have been produced at Fort Detrick, certainly not of the grade and quality found in that envelope.’

Abundant evidence that Ivins is innocent

Ivins passed two polygraph tests and no link was made between his handwriting and that on the anthrax letters. Investigators were so frustrated at Ivins passing the polygraph tests that they searched his house for books or articles on how to fool a polygraph, but found none.

US Attorney Jeff Taylor stated that the investigators zeroed in on Ivins when they ‘conducted additional investigative steps,’ and thus were ‘able to narrow the focus even further, exclude individuals, and that left us looking at Dr. Ivins.’

Those ‘additional investigative steps’ were polygraph tests. Where passing a polygraph test was enough to exclude certain people, it did not exclude Ivins.

Ivins’ car, work locker, safe deposit box and house were thoroughly swabbed for anthrax spores multiple times over the space of years; not a single spore was found, although the killer anthrax was so highly weaponized that it behaved like a gas and was very difficult to contain.

None of the materials in the mailings were found at his house: not the tape, the envelopes, nor the pen used to write the letters. There isn’t one piece of evidence placing him in New Jersey at the time the letters were mailed: not a credit card receipt, restaurant receipt, nor a witness.

On August 3, 2008, Glen Greenwald wrote in Salon:

It is so vital to emphasize that not a shred of evidence has yet been presented that the now-deceased Bruce Ivins played any role in the anthrax attacks, let alone that he was the sole or even primary culprit. Nonetheless, just as they did with Steven Hatfill, the media (with some notable and important exceptions) are reporting this case as though the matter is resolved.

Bruce Ivins: juggler, Red Cross volunteer, pianist

Jeff Taylor’s case against Ivins rests heavily on claims that Ivins was mentally ill. If Ivins was truly so unhinged, why was he allowed to work with toxic substances? His security clearance was never revoked.

Certainly a brilliant homicidal serial killer who is determined to avoid detection would immediately get rid of the Ames strain with the incriminating genotype in his flask, if he had used it to make weaponized powder and kill five people. Yet seven years later, the same genotype was still in Ivins’ lab!

The DOJ and FBI ask us to believe that Ivins launched the attacks because his vaccine research was not going well and he feared he might lose his job. It’s just not a plausible motivation.

In 2003, Ivins received the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service: the highest award given to the Defense Department’s civilian employees. He had been a respected scientist at USAMRIID for 35 years and had a very secure job.

Ivins had been married for 33 years. He played keyboard at his local church, he was a member of the American Red Cross, an avid juggler and founder of the Frederick Jugglers. He also played keyboards in a Celtic band and would often compose and play songs for coworkers who were moving to new jobs.

The FBI focused on him as a probable fall guy in 2006, and for two years was all over him, repeatedly questioning him, searching his home, car and office, and confronting him and his family in public with accusations that he had ‘killed people.’ His daughter was shown pictures of dead anthrax victims and told ‘your father did this.’ His son was promised $2.5 million and a sports car of his choice if he would implicate his father in the anthrax attacks. Who among us would not resort to drink, or drugs, or fantasies of revenge under those circumstances?

Who had the expertise to weaponize anthrax?

William C. Patrick III, and Ken Alibek.

William Patrick was the originator of the first anthrax weaponization process. He has five patents on anthrax weaponization and wrote a paper in 1999 setting out exactly what an anthrax attack by mail would look like.

Patrick’s scenario is very similar to what actually happened in 2001. For example, he suggests no more than 2.5 grams of anthrax per envelope; the envelopes contained two grams. One footnote in his paper reveals ‘we now have the ability to purify to one trillion spores per gram.’ William Patrick was a consultant to the CIA, Battelle, the Army, the DIA and the FBI on bio-weapons.

Ken Alibek headed up the Soviet bio-weapon programs until defecting to the USA in 1992. He brought with him the technology that was key in the anthrax attacks: using polymerized glass to attach silica to the anthrax spores. He worked for Battelle Memorial Institute in the late 90s.

These men had to have been instrumental in developing the technology used in the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Who can control the FBI, DOJ and the media?

The significance of the railroading of the deceased Ivins cannot be overstated. This railroading is not a matter of incompetence. In detail after detail, the joint FBI-DOJ prosecution deliberately lies, evades and obfuscates in a desperate attempt to pin blame somewhere and close the case. (A transcript of the entire August 6 news conference is available on npr.org, titled ‘DOJ News Conference On Bruce Ivins.’)

US Attorney Jeff Taylor states at the news conference that the envelopes used in the attacks were ‘very likely sold at a post office in the Frederick, Md. area,’ and that Ivins had a post office box there. This is another outright lie. Taylor’s own application for a search warrant stated:

[E]nvelopes with printing defects, identical to printing defects identified on the envelopes utilized in the anthrax attacks during the fall of 2001, were collected from the Fairfax Main post office in Fairfax, Virginia, and the Cumberland and Elkton post offices in Maryland.

Taylor and his supervisors at DOJ must be hoping that no one will notice or care that they are blatantly lying about their evidence against Ivins.

Reading the transcript, it is striking how often Jeff Taylor and Joseph Persichini refuse to answer questions. They either refer reporters to the Department of Defense (which is not holding a news conference) or to the documents they have been given.

When asked when their all new, ground-breaking DNA research would be published, Taylor replies ‘I’m not going to comment on (that).’ When asked a direct question about how many others were investigated other than Ivins, Taylor replies, ‘I’m not going to get into the details.’ Not only does he not get into the details, he doesn’t even give us the broad strokes. When asked how he can be so sure that there wasn’t another person involved, Taylor replies:

The evidence I described in my statement, and that I’ve described throughout this question-and-answer period, as I said, led us to conclude that Dr. Ivins is the person who committed this crime. We are confident, based on the evidence we have, that we could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, he doesn’t answer.

Honest citizens must ask themselves: who are the FBI and DOJ protecting? Who has the ability to control and corrupt an investigation of this importance? And why, after sitting through a news conference that is obviously a hastily constructed web of lies, have so many journalists dutifully reported the story just as instructed by Jeff Taylor?

We no longer have a working government in the United States. What we have are functionaries in various departments-Congress, FBI, DOJ, CIA-who take their orders from the corporations who make vast sums of money waging war and selling vaccines. Their influence extends to the major media outlets who control the flow of information to the American people. We are increasingly enslaved, manipulated and murdered by these corporations, and very few of us seem to realize it.

All signs are that Spitzer was targeted; the feds were far more interested in bringing down a rising Democratic star than in shutting the doors of the Emperors Club. Investigators had already been wiretapping the sex ring for almost three weeks on January 26, when the FBI staked out the Mayflower Hotel to catch Spitzer in flagrante delicto. But the hooker didn’t show or wasn’t seen by the FBI (although the feds were in the room across the hall, peeking through a cracked door).

When the one month wiretap authorization expired on February 7, the FBI had ample evidence against the Emperors Club, as well as numerous johns. But they still didn’t have anything really humiliating on Spitzer, only the record of him paying thousands of dollars to the prostitution ring.

They renewed the wiretap on February 11, and on February 12 they heard Spitzer on the line, asking for a hooker for the following day. That gave them an opportunity to catch Spitzer on tape dealing with the incriminating minutiae of arranging his tryst.

After Spitzer left room 871, they recorded the booker saying that some girls had complained about him because ‘he would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe,’ which has been repeated ad nauseam through the media, even though it probably means only that he didn’t want to use a condom, making him no different than 99% of the men on the planet.

In order to force Spitzer from office, it was essential to have these salacious details. Johns are very rarely prosecuted, and the Mann Act, aka the ‘White Slave Trade Act,’ enacted in 1910 to prevent forced prostitution, doesn’t apply, as there is no sign that Ashley Dupre was forced.

Once they had Spitzer’s voice on tape asking for Kristen, and the booker’s voice mentioning that he might want to do things that were ‘unsafe,’ the feds quickly wrapped up their investigation and filed charges-but not against Eliot Spitzer. He hasn’t been charged, nor was he named in court documents.

Could prosecutors go after Client # 9 without also prosecuting Clients # 1 through 8? Seems doubtful, and the media has been strangely silent on the identities of the other Johns-with no interest in who else has been implicated in the 5,000 phone calls and 6,000 emails gleaned from the wiretap.

Spitzer was tried in the media, with swift results.

The Times account of how they broke the story is disingenuous at best. After receiving a routine press release about a sex ring on Thursday, March 6, they learned (they say) that the lead prosecutor in the case was the chief of the public corruption unit of the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office. Because those units look at the conduct of elected officials, the Times became convinced that a public figure was involved.

Further down in their story, they state: ‘By Friday, the Times was confident that the official was Mr. Spitzer.’ They give no clue whatsoever for how they came to that conclusion.

Who leaked the information about Spitzer to the Times? Will we see the Justice Department now rise up like a lion and go in search of the scallywags that are responsible?

Not too likely. According to Harpers.com, the ‘Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice is now at the center of a major scandal concerning politically directed prosecutions. During the Bush Administration, his Justice Department has opened 5.6 cases against Democrats for every one involving a Republican.’

Let’s be clear what happened here: a man paid for sex. Louisiana Senator David Vitter did the same, but there was no wire-tap, no stake-out, hence no titillating details: he’s still in office.

Senator Larry Craig tried to solicit sex in a men’s bathroom, and was the butt of jokes about his ‘wide stance,’ but he withstood the storm. Still in office.

Senator John McCain was romantically linked with a female lobbyist and improperly used his influence to try to persuade regulators to take positions favorable to her clients. He’s not only still in office, he could be our next president.

Spitzer was a popular attorney general who won an unprecedented 69% of the vote in his race for governor. New Yorkers-indeed all American investors-needed someone to fight for them against the Big Guys. For a while, as Sheriff of Wall Street, Eliot Spitzer was that man. Evidently he angered someone with the power to take him down. We are all the poorer for it.

But conspiracy theorists are assumed to fear something much larger and more insidious than run of the mill nastiness; their suspicions focus on vast schemes and secret societies that control the levers of government. Conventional wisdom calls these people crackpots, nut jobs, tin foil hatters. Wikipedia states that ‘conspiracy theorist is a pejorative term, used to dismiss claims that are considered paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration.’

It seems that conspiracy theorists have all the credibility of members of the Flat Earth Society.

Are we to assume then that no governmental conspiracies exist? That the idea of the Bush administration lying to us, or pressuring other agencies such as the State Department, CIA, or Justice Department to lie to us is unthinkable? That it wouldn’t be possible, for example, for them to cook up a case for war against a country that never attacked us, using information they know to be false? That they might claim that we are invading to spread democracy, when they really have their eye on the $30 trillion in oil under Iraqi sands? That they are willing to be thought of as incompetent because they invaded without an exit strategy when not leaving is exactly what those double-dealing conspirators had in mind?

Me neither, that could never happen.

Who are these wild-eyed conspiracy theorists? One was JFK. In a 1961 speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association he said:

‘We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence-on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.’

Another was Hilary Clinton. In an interview on The Today Show in 1998, she referred to a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband.’

JFK and Hilary Clinton, two deranged, delusional denizens of the lunatic fringe, trying to undermine the country no doubt.

Conspiracy theorists are getting a lot of press these days, because they keep popping up in unexpected places. When several members of We Are Change infiltrated Real Time with Bill Maher last month to shout out their half-baked theories about 9/11 being an inside job, the incident was shown by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News and Jeanne Moos and Glenn Beck on CNN. O’Reilly and Beck roundly denounced the mush-for-brains radicals, and Beck posted a poll on his website, asking if viewers didn’t agree that anyone who thinks our government planned 9/11 is ‘insane.’

Unfortunately for Beck, 66% said no, they’re not. Is it possible that two-thirds of his viewers are insane as well?

They’re not the only crackpots. A September 2007 Zogby poll found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush and Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks. A New York Times/CBS News poll from October 2006 found that only 16% of adults fully believe the official story about 9/11, while 84% believe the Bush administration is either hiding something or is lying.

Apparently large numbers of paranoid Americans doubt the story put forth by our esteemed leaders, the one about 19 hijackers from caves overcoming all the defenses of our $500 billion/year military while armed with nothing but box cutters. Many otherwise normal people wonder how a steel-framed skyscraper could crumble to the ground at free-fall speed because of damage at its top floors. Other no-good degenerates question why an airplane that crashed in Pennsylvania would leave wreckage over eight square miles. So be careful out there. Wear your seatbelt. These looney-tunes are everywhere.

Unfortunately the 9/11 Truth virus has infected the highest levels of society. Pilots, engineers, physicists, architects, CIA veterans and former government officials are among those raving about WTC 7, molten metal and Bush’s unusual absorption in ‘My Pet Goat.’ Can we trust them? Of course not, they’re conspiracy theorists.

But, just for arguments sake, consider if there were a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about 9/11. Don’t you think they’d need an equally vast PR campaign to portray any conspiracy theorists in the worst possible light, so all 84% of us would keep our suspicions to ourselves, lest we be mocked mercilessly?

Me neither.