Posted on 12/13/2001 1:44:37 PM PST by Mitchell
The letters seem suspicious because Arab terrorists - like bin Laden and Atta and others - write long screeds.
I wasn't referring to Khamenei's speech.
I'm still betting on a domestic source. It just has a Unabomber feel to it, you know?
In addition, there is a complete lack of evidence linking the anthrax mailings to anybody else. While one could speculate about anybody as a possible perpetrator, there should be some actual evidence supporting the potential link. I see no such evidence for the Unabomber-like person, or an extreme right-wing or left-wing group, or any of the other speculative theories that have been proposed. The arguments for these other theories are generally one of the following:
I should add that I think it's quite conceivable that some domestic group or individuals might be involved, in addition to and in association with the Muslim extremists. But the true origin of the attack, I think, lies abroad.
This is not some grounded theory, mind you. It's just instinct. But Leahy?
I would guess that they were going after the Senate, so they targeted the Senate Majority Leader and an important chairman, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (why Democrats? -- the Democrats do control the Senate, so they're the officers and leaders). We also don't know if there were anthrax letters mailed to other Senators which either were not delivered (held in a bag somewhere like the Leahy letter) or were not revealed publicly by the recipient Senator.
Congress is definitely a possible terrorist target. Look at how terrorists just staged a major attack on India's parliament; they went after the legisative branch, not the executive branch, on this occasion.
It's hard to imagine which domestic group would choose to target Daschle, Leahy, the NY Post, Tom Brokaw, and American Media. A "far right-wing group" would not have missed the IRS; they would probably have also picked Hillary Clinton, perhaps Ted Kennedy or a similar figure; Daschle, Leahy, and those media recipients are just not the major icons of liberalism that they would have picked. Run through other possible perpetrator groups or agendas (extreme environmentalists; animal rights people; anti-abortion activists; protesters against free trade, the global economy, and the WTO), and you'll see that none of them has a good match with the actual targets. Plus, you have to ask: How this would help their political agenda, since they're not taking responsibility and since the targets aren't so closely identified with the appropriate political position to make the purpose obvious?
If the source is domestic, why are there so many links with the 9/11 terrorists? And no links, or even rumors of links, with the supposed domestic group?
If the source is domestic, why aren't there any dead people in the neighborhood where the anthrax was prepared? Even a few spores in cross-contaminated mail can apparently kill, and it's very difficult to set up a lab with proper protections. (It's hard to imagine one of these fringe groups, or a lone Unabomber type, setting up a proper lab, without making mistakes due to carelessness and/or lack of knowledge, and therefore having accidental releases.)
The anthrax mailings all came with warning letters. Many more people would have been killed were it not for these warnings. If these mailings had been part of an actual attack, intended to kill many people, there would have been no warning letters. (In fact, they probably wouldn't have picked the mail as a delivery method in that case.)
But it makes perfect sense to target Senate leaders in powerful positions, as well as individuals in the media, if the purpose is to convey a warning. You can call it deterrence or you can call it blackmail -- either way, it's a warning to us not to attack. Who are we being threatened by in this way? I would guess Iraq, but Pres. Bush probably knows the truth; the perpetrator would have made sure of that. I assume that revealing it at this time would be militarily imprudent.
To place this in the best possible light, the authorities ought to be pursuing the various possible theories simultaneously, not just the single most likely one. I would concede that homegrown terrorism is a possibility; I don't think it's likely, and the evidence doesn't really point that way, but it probably ought to be pursued. In the same way, I would hope that even somebody who favors the domestic theory would see the benefit in also pursuing the al-Qaeda theory (and maybe others).
On the other hand, if the FBI is serious about mailing their plea for help to the NY/NJ/Philly area, one has to ask why they aren't including southern Florida, where the first attack took place. Since the first attack was in FL, it stands to reason that the preparations are likely to have taken place there, over a period of time, so leads are more likely to be uncovered there.
It's very strange that they would lock on to a domestic (lone GOP whitey) source with the evidence they have. It's all based on Clinton holdovers stressing that the media and Senate targets are liberals, hoping to score OKC type political points against the right.
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.