| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Who did the anthrax attack? |
| 2005-11-29 |
| Who did the Anthrax attack? Recently, the democrats have been hitting the âBush Liedâ mantra hard and heavy. The basic argument is: âMaybe Bush didnât say Saddam and al-quaida-9/11 are connected, but he made people think they were because so many people think they were connected.â I think there is another reason why people think Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Itâs called common sense. It has been years now since the 9/11 attack and the near simultaneous anthrax attack. Who did the anthrax attack? What do we know now compared to what we knew at the time of the attacks? Almost nothing new. We have had years of the FBI going after American defense scientists. Let me clarify that: The FBI has been pursuing U.S. citizens with high level clearances, years of professional experience and demonstrated loyalty to this country. The FBI has found nothing. What do we, the public know about the anthrax attack? This became public knowledge after the attack to anyone who could read a webpage. 1. We know the anthrax came from U.S. labs. We also know the labs released this strain to foreign countries for research. We also know it takes a strain that has particular characteristics that make it useful for weaponizing. Not any old anthrax will do. 2. We know from media sources that weaponizing anthrax can not be done by Joe Blow in his kitchen. We know it takes expensive, specialized equipment. We also know it takes a serious education in bio-warfare. 3. We know, and most people realized immediately, that Saddam had the capability to create it, weaponize anthrax because he had previously done so, and AQ had the ability to smuggle it in and release it. To sum up: most Americans realized immediately that Saddam could make it and AQ wouldnât hesitate to use it. Why wouldnât they? Therefore, there was a link and most of us believed it. So, most people at the time (everyone that I knew) believed the anthrax attacks were a continuing, near simultaneous attack with the plane hijackings. My military friends even found reason to believe this was a version of the combined arms attack, a fundamental of modern warfare. But then, enter the FBI. To understand the motives of the FBI, we must look at their responsibilities. Before 9/11, they were the chief counterterrorism agency for attacks in the U.S. That means they blew it big on 9/11. But, with video of the perps, there was absolutely no way for the FBI to cover up their failure and AQ success, not to imply they wanted to. I think they took it on the chin like they should have. Now enter the anthrax attack. Was this another successive terrorist attack from abroad targeting the U.S. from AQ? Another FBI failure? What would happen to the counterterrorism branch of the FBI if it were discovered AQ hit us twice with simultaneous attacks? Sort of makes me think that this counterterrorism function would have been ripped away and handed to another branch of government. So, it is not so hard to see that jobs were on the line here, careers even. So, the FBI focused its investigation on a U.S. scientist because he supposedly padded his resume? This so soon after the high profile Richard Jewel fiasco? Didnât they just learn a tough lesson about perp walking a guy before they had hard facts? Yet they consistently had the media covering their investigation of a U.S. scientist. For anyone working at a government facility, you know that after 9/11, the security was tight. It is hard to believe that a scientist could have snuck out weaponized anthrax after 9/11. So this means they would have had to have it lying around at home before 9/11. But waiting for what? For AQ to attack the WTC? This doesnât make sense in any way. Anybody get the picture yet? The FBI knew it would lose part of its reason to exist, careers, and respect if AQ did the anthrax attack. So they went after a U.S. scientist. And after about 3 years of this and the media extolling the lack of concrete evidence, people are now convinced that Saddam and AQ had no link and nothing to do with the anthrax attack. Now I ask, do you find it easier to believe that a cleared, professional, educated, patriotic, U.S. scientist did this attack. Or Saddam, who did have anthrax, could have given some to an AQ agent? What makes more sense, unless you have another theory? |
| Posted by:Ray Robison |
| #5 The main problem with the information which we have is that it requires us to accept that the FBI was correct in some of its analysis but not in all of it. For example, we believe that they got the strain of anthrax correct but that Drs. Hatfil and Berry had nothing to do with the attacks. Once we get to a place between "the FBI is entirely wrong" and "the FBI is entirely correct", what we choose to believe is a matter of faith and not fact. The Florida attack suggests someone with little knowledge of America, a letter mailed to the American Media, Inc. An attack upon American media, surely a terror target if there ever was one. The deaths of Kathy Nguyen and Ottilie Lindgren remain unexplained as do the many similar hoax letters received by all of the original targets around that time. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2005-11-29 10:55 |
| #4 Don't forget this little bit of info before it disappears down the memory hole: Report raises question of anthrax, hijacker link A memorandum issued by a prestigious research center concluded that one of the September 11 hijackers might have been infected with cutaneous (skin) anthrax when he sought treatment at a Florida hospital before the attacks. The first anthrax attack occurred in Florida. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-11-29 08:12 |
| #3 Don't forget this could be a rope-a-dope. Might not Iran supply the anthrax if it could be pinned on Saddam. |
| Posted by: bruce 2005-11-29 07:39 |
#2 Don't forget the piece in Uday's "Babil":At this stage it is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of the hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything. This attack might not necessarily be launched by the Islamists. It might be done by the Zionists or any other party through an agent. The viruses easily spread by air, and people are affected without feeling it. Date published? September 20th, 2001. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-29 07:35 |
| #1 I know of a man (link) who has done a fair bit of thinking on the subject of anthrax, Saddam, and September 11. There's a scene in Dr. Strangelove that comes to mind. The Soviet ambassador has just revealed the existence of the Doomsday Device. President Muffley asks for the good Doctor's opinion on whether such a weapon is feasable. Dr. S. goes on for sometime about technical arrangements, and then observes, "Of course, the entire point of such a weapon is lost... if you keep it a secret. Why didn't you tell the world, EH?" The letters weren't attacks, really, but an advertisement of a credible deterrent. And this link is a useful technical primer. The most significant thing wasn't the anthrax, really, but the advanced coating on the spores in the Daschle and Leahy letters. |
| Posted by: Rory B. Bellows 2005-11-29 01:52 |