[Wolfstar]

Thanks for pinging me to this terrific resource thread.

The 9/11 commission's actual title is "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." That's a far broader scope than would be apparent from all their lint-picking and navel-gazing as to who was at fault for 9/11. I wonder if any of the wizards on that commission have even figured out that the anthrax letters were a terrorist attack upon the United States. If so, I wonder what we can expect in their report on this particular matter.

I also wonder why all those 20/20-hindsight dot-connectors out there in the media haven't figured out the central role the anthrax attacks must have had in sealing Saddam's fate. Just this morning, some press dude with a sonorous voice and a big title was on C-SPAN holding forth on how the record shows that President Bush was looking at the possibility of attacking Iraq in Nov. 2001.

Well, duh! Wouldn't it be nice if the media would connect THESE dots:

• In Nov. 2001, we were just two months out from a massive terrorist attack that nearly brought our country to its knees.
• Not only were we confronted by the events of 9/11/01, but near simultaneous anthrax attacks against media centers, the United States Postal Service, and the United States Capitol.
• The hunt for more anthrax letters was still very much current, urgent and active in Nov. 2001.
• Regime change in Iraq — just so we're clear, that means the overthrow of Saddam Hussein — had been United States policy since the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
• Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iranians.
• He was connected to the 1993 WTC bombing through Ramzi Youssef.
• United Nations inspectors and virtually every major intelligence service in the world said he had stockpiles of anthrax agents.

Now that was the ACTUAL state of the nation in Nov. 2001. Given those facts, any — repeat any — President of the United States would be criminally negligent if he didn't:

(1) Demand an inquiry into the possibility that Iraq was behind or connected to the anthrax attacks, if not the hijackings.

(2) Ask for plans to be drawn up for the invasion of Iraq should it become necessary.

[Shermy]

Demand an inquiry into the possibility that Iraq was behind or connected to the anthrax attacks, if not the hijackings.

Did people go out of their way to recklessly dismiss Saddam's involvement, whether he was involved or not?

Who had an interest in keeping the status quo? Saddam obviously. Others too?