"...how many of them were aware that Mohammad Atta’s roommate had cutaneous anthrax...."
In fact, it's not known that Al Haznawi had anthrax. There has been some speculation to that effect -- educated speculation, by the emergency room doctor who treated him at the time, but after-the-fact speculation nonetheless.
When he overstates his case like this, it makes me doubt his accuracy in general.
Incidentally, around the time of the anthrax mailings, there were other cases of apparent spider bites and lung infections that some have speculated might have been undiagnosed anthrax, but, in the absence of proof, those people have not been placed on any list of victims of the anthrax mailings.
Mitchell,
Your point seems sound.
By way of some context:
Larsen on Larry King -.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/10/lkl.00.html
“LARSEN: The reporter was talking to the anchorperson and said the Ames strain of this anthrax is resistant to vaccine, the anthrax vaccine. Well, first of all, that is wrong. The Ames vaccine — or the Ames strain was catalogued about 50 years ago in Ames, Iowa. That is the strain of anthrax we use to test our vaccine. So, obviously, it is not resistant to it. ...
Now, in the rush to get the story on the network news, we must not give up credibility and truth. We’ve got to get the facts right. And I think, if we give the right facts to the American people, we are going to be in a lot better shape. All the exercises we have done have proven it is important for our elected officials, our appointed officials and the media to provide good, solid information. We need to give the American people facts, not fear.”
Now this is ironic, because his factual point is mistaken. The origin of this “Ames strain” is a cow in Texas in 1981 or so.
But the key is that as new information becomes available, positions are adapted.
Your point does not mention or address that “extremely virulent” anthrax was then found in Fall 2003 in Kandahar, where the hijacker had just come from.
So whatever expert opinion Ingleby and O’Toole, the bioterror experts, rendered, was made much more likely (assuming we credit Suskind’s book on this point).