Of course that's exactly what it was. And by itself, the anthrax threats demonstrate conclusively that Saddam was the author of 9/11. Click on the pic for a full briefing.
Posted on 02/11/2003 7:37:08 AM PST by yonif
Accumulated evidence, albeit mostly circumstantial, is nonethless sufficient to implicate Iraq in the wave of Anthrax incidents in America in the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks, according to former IDF intelligence officer Dr. Danny Shoham.
Mystery still surrounds the affair of letters containing the deadly biological warfare agent that were sent to various addresses in the US over a more than two-month period shortly after the suicide attacks on New York and Washington.
Shoham, a senior researcher at Bar Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, believes that the proximity of the two events is no coincidence and that both were perpetrated by al-Qaida and sponsored by Iraq.
This thesis, published in the latest edition of the authoratitive "International Journal of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence," is based on reported links between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida in Sudan in the early 1990s.
The international terrorist organization's leader Osama bin Laden was reported to have found a temporary safe haven in Sudan at a time that coinicded with reports that significant portions of Iraq's non-conventional weapons assets had also been moved there for "safe-keeping."
"They (bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence) found several common denominators, including inflicting damage and harm on the US and Israel through a variety of means of terror," said Shoham.
"These strong bonds intensified towards the end of the 1990's and reached a peak in the attacks against New York and Washington and the distribution of the Anthrax letters.
"The preparations for both these acts of sabotage were far too meticulous and required such a great deal of complex planning and real-time intelligence that they could not have been conducted by a terrorist organization.
"The resources needed for such operations, including installations for the process of manufacturing Anthrax powder, point to the involvement of a State that sponsors terrorism," he said.
Regarding Iraq being behind the Anthrax letters, Shoham contends that the culmulative evidence is sufficient to form just that conclusion despite its circumstantial nature. This concept could equally apply to findings presented to the UN Security Council last week by Secretary of State Colin Powell to prove the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that it is not disarming.
"The Anthrax evidence relates to four categories the earlier conduct by Iraq of non-conventional preparations and operations, Iraqi activities concerned with Anthrax as a biological warfare agent and the relationship of Iraq to the affair of the Anthrax letters," said Shoham.
"In each of these categories there is a critical mass of circumstantial evidence the integration of which is superior to the defense of reasonable doubt.
"In the first category it is known that in the 1980's Iraqi intelligence established a security network for researching and producing non-conventional weapons and made preparations for conducting biological and chemical terrorism. "In terms of operations, it is also known that these agents have been used, for example against the Kurds and against political opponents of the regime of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis put nerve agents in the food supplies of fugitive Kurds, as well as in the the shells fired at them.
"Investigations into the abortive attack against the Twin Towers in 1993, when explosives as well as cyanide precursors were used, found that this was Iraqi sponsored.
"Regarding the third category, in the extremely diversified range of biological warfare agents developed by the Iraqis since the 1980's, Anthrax was considered in their conception to be the most important for military and sabotage operations."
Shoham said the fact that Iraq has stockpiled Anthrax, has not hesitated to use non-conventional weapons in the past and has an established a network for perpetration bio-chemical terrorism, coupled with its reputed links to al-Qaida, leads to the conclusion it was involved in the Anthrax letters affair.
"A comprehensive analysis of all the relevant information negates the still considered possibility that the operation was a purely American domestic affair," he said.
"Installations, not just a one or two room laboratory, are needed to produce the kind of Anthrax powder that was used in these cases.
"The chances that such installations existed in America but have not been discovered until this day are slim. Similarly, the chances that they were discovered but the information has been kept under wraps and has not been unearthed by the press are also slim."
Shoham contends that in the grey world of intelligence gathering and analysis where verifiable facts are hard to come by, it is often the case that accumulated circumstantial evidence has to suffice.
"Any analytical context that is not merely technical but relies on the power of the mind, ultimately reaches a point where evidence, even if only circumstantial, generally accumulates to a certain level of a critical mass, thus producing a solid conclusion," he says.
"This point is both conceivable and pragmatic. Its validity is both intrinsic and objective, stemming from an inherent plausability. Occasionally, the resulting conclusion is inadequate to propel the practical moves strategic or political which are regarded as it corollaries.
"This may be inevitable due to the very fact that the evidence is circumstantial, but that does not impair the validity even for those conclusions considered to be inferential assessments.
Unavoidably, intelligence analysts often face such challenges."
Asked why the alleged Iraqi links to the Anthrax letters had not been highlighted by the Americans and used to further justify the use of force to disarm Saddam and his regime, Shoham said the fact it had been accepted for publication in a highly reputable American journal did not necessarily mean it was accepted by the US authorities.
"They might, however, have come to this same conclusion but to only reveal the information now would be an admission of failure on the part of the investigators so they might be refraining from publicly dealing with the issue at this stage," Shoham added.
(2)Because they liked the way Klintoon pinned OKC wholly on McVeigh so much that they thought they could accomplish their terror objective while also getting cover from a "right wing extremist" theory, and that cover is exactly what they got from the start.
Here's an article from the Washington Post, which most of the elites consider to be a "reputable news source", quoting Richard Spertzel, one of the world's foremost experts on bioweapons, who disagrees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28334-2002Oct27¬Found=true
On an unrelated note, why exactly are you here on Free Republic? Whenever I see you here, it seems like it is almost always to attack other people, whether it was people suggesting that the Beltway Snipers might be Muslims, or people suggesting that Iraq has fostered much of the terrorist acts against us over the last ten years. In fact, a few days ago an another thread you made the outrageous suggestion that some people here want to see another major terrorist attack against us. Are you even a conservative?
Suppose you don't know who the Big Wheels in the U.S. government are. Other than the President, you haven't heard of any of them. You're in a foreign country that you don't really understand.
You can tell by turning on the TV who the big networks are. And driving down the freeway, you saw that building named "American Media." You pick up a newspaper, and there are big stories about this Daschle character and some guy named Leahy. You don't know who they are, but they must be important to get such news coverage.
The explanation could be that easy.
Yes, I think the fact that the first attack was on a small Florida company that prints supermarket circulars, that no one ever heard of but which had the name, "American Media" AND was next door to Mohammed Atta's digs is virtually diagnostic of hostile non-American involvement.
The anthrax thing had to be some sort of a shot across the bow on the part of the Iraqis. The stuff was particalized to such an extent that it went right through the paper of envelopes while at the same time was not weaponized or otherwise resistant to antibiotics. A very strange combination of approaches if domestically produced, but precisely what you'd expect as a warning from the Iraqis.
Obviously, nobody can be allowed to get away with such a thing.
Don't be misled by an assumption that, because it's Ames, it has to have come from the U.S. That's like saying that Spanish influenza can only exist in Spain.
The Ames strain was shared with several other countries -- both as a biowarfare possibility (to military labs) and as a serious animal husbandry threat (to vet med schools).
Thus, the sample that was cultured in volume by the Iraqis could have come via any of many possible sources. And it was chosen for weaponization, not because of its American origin, but because of its virulence.
Of course that's exactly what it was. And by itself, the anthrax threats demonstrate conclusively that Saddam was the author of 9/11. Click on the pic for a full briefing.
"The explanation could be that easy."
It could be even easier. Addressing the anthrax to the Democrats makes it more plausible that a "right-wing crazy" was responsible for the attack. Thus providing a degree of cover and serving one major objective of terrorism: to divide the target against itself.
Actually, it originated in South Texas. But was sent by a Texas A&M staffer to the national type culture lab in a re-used shipper which had the Dept of Ag animal diseases lab in Ames, IA as the return address.
Thus, did it gain its name. More accurately, it would be the Cotulla Strain...
When your sheep are being killed and there's only one wolf in the neighborhood, you shoot the wolf. That one doesn't take a whole lot of brains...
Expert sources from my hazmat training assert:
(1) Anthrax previously produced by lunatic fringe groups never met weaponized grade of agent. Much like comparing Icarus wings against the space shuttle for aviation.
(2) The 2001 subject agent is a weaponized grade of anthrax. Very few countries in the world are capable of producing this grade of agent.
(3) While no "proof," many skeptics can not dismiss the possibility the subject agent was smuggled into the USA via many means, including diplomatic pouch.
My personal spin. 
Use the pedophile wannabe Ritter theorem:
Ask Scotty Ritter if Iraq was responsible. If slimy Scotty claims Iraq was not responsible, Iraq most certainly was responsilbe.
They turned to the hot topic of anthrax. The powder in the letter mailed to Senator Daschle's office had been found to be potent, prompting officials to suggest its source was likely an expert capable of producing the bacteria in large amounts. Tenet said, "I think it's AQ" – meaning al Qaeda. "I think there's a state sponsor involved. It's too well thought out, the powder's too well refined. It might be Iraq, it might be Russia, it might be a renegade scientist," perhaps from Iraq or Russia. Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, said he also thought the anthrax attacks were state sponsored. "We've got to be careful on what we say." It was important not to lay it on anyone now. "If we say it's al Qaeda, a state sponsor may feel safe and then hit us thinking they will have a bye because we'll blame it on al Qaeda."Funnily enough, ten days after this NSC meeting, Bob Woodward was peddling the "rightwing extremist" line in the Washington Post: FBI and CIA Suspect Domestic Extremists: Officials Doubt Any Links to Bin Laden."I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor," Tenet assured them.
"It's good that we don't," said Cheney, "because we're not ready to do anything about it."
Hmm. Odd, that. The administration concludes that the anthrax came from al-Qaeda, probably supplied by a state sponsor, but that it is inappropriate to inform the public of that conclusion. Ten days later, Bob Woodward is peddling the right-wing militia story to the public. What could this possibly mean? What could we possibly conclude from this?
What could this possibly mean? What could we possibly conclude from this?
Indeed. Sounds like a certain reporter was "on board" with the plan right from the beginning.
| Addressing the anthrax to the Democrats makes it more plausible that a "right-wing crazy" was responsible
|
Woodward was also used to promulgate the immensely useful myth of Powell the hand-wringing peacenik dove on Iraq. See the last chapter of Bush at War. Especially viewed from our current vantage point, the whole gambit seems almost laughably transparent. But, like the man said, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
But, like the man said, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
So true, so true...
The only channel they get is CNN?
I'll bet Hatfill is happy to hear this. < /sarcasm>
Makes sense to me!
Why do you assume the perpetrators of the anthrax attacks INTENDED to kill few people with it? The most likely reason is a miscalculation. The perps wanted to bring down American government, military, financial institutions, and media all in one fell swoope. The fact that the first known letter went to an outfit called American Media is telling. Other letters went to Brokaw and Rather, two famous U.S. media personalities. One may have also gone to Jennings, since a child who visited ABC got sick. But the source was never determined.
As for Daschle and Leahy, to anyone unfamiliar with our system of government, in the months prior to 9/11 Daschle would have seemed like the guy in charge of the whole Congress. Leahy was also all over the tube during that time being interviewed about judicial appointments. So he could easily have seemed more important than he was (or is).
The hijackings were intended to take out easily identifiable financial, military and government targets. The flight that came down in Pennsylvania is believed to have been intended for the White House or the Capitol. It is also believed that other hijackers were in the air that day, but didn't act before air traffic was shut down nationwide.
There are no easily identifiable ABC-CBS-NBC targets that could be taken out from the air. But the anthrax could do it (or so the perps thought). Plus, it had the added benefit of serving as a backup operation if any one hijacking attempt didn't go according to plan.
Although they did succeed in slaughtering over 3000 people, shutting down our air traffic, government, and financial institutions, and rocking the country back on its heels for a short while, luck actually wasn't entirely with them. The twin towers and Pentagon attrocities killed far fewer people than what might have been the case a little later in the day, or if the towers came down faster, or, in the case of the Pentagon plane, if it had hit more squarely into the heart of the building. The Pennsylvania plane did not hit its intended target. And the anthrax attacks sowed lots of fear, but killed few.
Well, actually, it seems to take more brains than most on the Left appear to have.
Seems to me the other way round. If they know Saddam is behind the anthrax, why would they want to join America in a war against Saddam? That would be like sticking little targets to their heads: "Hit me, I need to take millions dead!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
To think of that requires a degree of sophistication about American politics that I think is negated by the attack on American Media. Like Jim Noble (see Post #10) I think that attack points to a guy who is 'lost in space' as far as understanding American culture is concerned. That's a guy who saw that sign, and thought he was attacking the American Media, or at least some big power in it. That's a clueless foreigner at work. Somebody like that would not understand our politics well enough to know right-wing from Shinola. Besides, didn't Fox News get one of those envelopes? The New York Post did as well. In fact the selection of the Post (as opposed to the Times) is another indicator that the guy didn't know what he was doing. He just saw a row of newsstands and picked one.