Thursday, January 05, 2006

the Lonesome Death of Otillie Lundgren

Americans have no memory. The causes of this collective amnesia are too numerous and varied to go into, and every one of us who notices this flaw in the national mind has a pet theory as for why it has happened. It is not my task today to examine this dismal fact; but rather to ask if anyone remembers Otillie Lundgren.

The circumstances of her death were bizarre but not unique to her time. She was 94, and she died after receiving mail tainted by anthrax. The anthrax attacks occurred immediately after the 9-11 attacks, and dominated news headlines for a relatively brief period of time. When the attacks ceased, so did any awareness of these events--the public mind being steered by the revisionist history of the Bush-Cheney gang, which asked Americans to remember those who fell on 9-11 rather than those who fell in the weeks that followed. Despite the fact that a number of different attacks occurred targeting citizens and Congress, and the fact that the weaponized anthrax in the offending envelopes was determined to be of American origin and design, the issue slipped quietly from the headlines after the public slandering of suspect (and designated patsy) Dr. Stephen Hatfill was completed.

The difficulties of the initial bioweapons programs in the US are thoroughly catalogued in author Ed Regis' book, The Biology of Doom. Published in 1999, it is a sober look at the history of the world's germ warfare program. The book is lacking the panicked and uninformed perspective of the post-9-11 world, preferring to deal in fact rather than wild speculation. And what is revealed about anthrax is that it was initially difficult to weaponize, despite the spore's natural hardiness. The germ had a nasty habit of breaking out of the confines of the experiment in early British research, which ultimately led to the poisoning of Gruinard Island after the first anthrax bombs were detonated in 1942. Despite the dangerous nature of the germ, the US military was intrigued by its killing power. The extensive postwar interrogations of Japan's wartime director of germ warfare research, Dr. Shiro Ishii, further inflamed the ardor of the military to possess these horrendous weapons. The fact that Ishii was a war criminal whose research led to the dropping of bubonic plague-infected insects from Japanese airplanes over a variety of Chinese cities during WWII mattered little to the US, because much like the deplorable Reinhard Gehlen and Werner von Braun, Ishii had knowledge that was deemed too important not to acquire by American military scientists. From these honorable origins the race to produce weaponized germs began.

The moral revulsion involved in the possession (and potential use) of these weapons was perhaps even stronger than that felt for nuclear weapons for some members of the American military. But many felt justified in the production and research of such horrors. Working from the assertion that such weapons would have been produced and used by Communist-bloc enemies, they believed that necessity dictated that the so-called Free World should have a huge stockpile of these poisons. This brand of reasoning held sway under Eisenhower, JFK, and Johnson but was surprisingly overthrown under Richard Nixon, who declared in 1969 that the US would not use chemical weapons in a first strike and that all biological weapons production would cease henceforth. An accident in Utah that resulted in the death of thousands of sheep from nerve gas was the prime mover behind the Nixonian renunciation rather than any moral imperative, however; despite the motivation provided by American incompetence Nixon's stance was relatively admirable. Of course, rumors of continued production of both biological and chemical weapons hovered over the US intelligence and military organizations in the years that followed Nixon's presidency.

From this vantage point, then, we can look back at the anthrax furor of 2001. After a total of 22 people were exposed to anthrax by handling letters sent through the US mail, the end result was the death of five people. The deliberate misspellings contained in the text of the anthrax letters are reminiscent of such media campaigns of the past as the Jack the Ripper killings or the Son of Sam murders, and the proclamations of the letters (Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is great etc.) seemed right away to be an obvious attempt at provocation. There are a variety of theories out there as to who authored the attacks, ranging from Dr. B.H. Rosenberg's very public tarring of Dr. Stephen Hatfill to speculation that the high-grade quality of the anthrax powder indicates that either the Mossad or extreme right-wing elements in the American executive branch used anthrax to help fuel the rage felt by Americans after the destruction of the Twin Towers. Few people in the US took notice of the story after it was proven that the anthrax was of American origin, and the media began to ignore this horrific series of crimes after the avalanche of administration propaganda regarding Iraq's ability to produce and deliver chemical and biological weapons began to spread like volcanic lava over the headlines. Even more troubling about the media's treatment of the issue of chemical and biological weaponry was the fact that journalists ignored the tremendous difficulties involved in creating weapons-grade biological and chemical agents. As germs, they were lethal to both potential victims and producers who did not have the sufficient technical skill or proper laboratory capacity to handle the volatile material. Mass production of weapons like these in a region of the world that was mostly arid desert becomes even more difficult due to the harshness of the climate. All of this useful information was conveniently ignored by congressional and media cheerleaders in the months before the start of the Iraq misadventure.

Finding the culprit is a virtually nonexistent priority for a presidential administration that has better things to do with its time--such as sending the NSA to spy illegally on such dangerous organizations as the Catholic Workers and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Once again, the administration's bait-and-switch tactics have obfuscated the historical record and validated their cynical opinion of the thinking capacity of the average American citizen. Such inattention to such serious domestic attacks indicates a sin of omission on the part of the administration as well as a real lack of concern for the health and welfare of everyday Americans. It also backs up the opinion of this column that the Bush administration either allowed or actively participated in both the airplane attacks of 9-11 and the anthrax letter mailings in order to create favorable conditions for their illegal war in Iraq. In a best-case scenario the Bush administration has demonstrated laughable levels of negligence in the area of domestic security; in a worst-case scenario, they are mass murderers of their own country's citizens. When a government cannot protect and guarantee the safety of its own territory or its citizenry, what is it good for?

So this brings us back to the death of Otillie Lundgren, age 94. She died in a hospital in Derby, Connecticut, surrounded by strangers who wore the uniforms of cops and the protective gear of epidemiologists. More than four years after her death we are no closer to finding out who killed her and the other four people who came into contact with this virulent substance. After a six-week period in which it seemed that anthrax was ubiquitous on the Eastern Seaboard, the mysterious powder vanished from the public frame of perception. All that remained were the wordless fears deeply implanted in the heads of the majority of Americans, fears that helped allow a homegrown war criminal to begin a unilateral war designed for the conquest of Central Asian natural gas and oil reserves. Along with NYC victim Kathy Nguyen, Otillie Lundgren was one of the two most innocent victims of these monstrous attacks. Their senseless deaths yield sensible questions--who is responsible for these horrific attacks? And who profited the most by their deaths? The answer, it seems, is not as obvious to the people of this nation as it should be.