1) Why the heck is it on his LEG? I believe all of the cutaneous anthrax cases from the attacks on postal workers, the NY Post woman, etc. were on the fingers, hands, and arms. What, was the guy mixing anthrax like he was stomping grapes or something?
2) If the guy was handling anthrax and knew he was handling anthrax, why wasn't he already on antibiotics beforehand? Why would he need to go to the hospital? Why would he get a lesion? I find the scenario that they were given this powedery stuff to put in letters but no one actually knew what it was fairly unlikely.
3) If he was handling anthrax, wouldn't someone in the group know this was probably anthrax? This is before the hijackings, mind you. He had to have known there would be SOME risk the lesion would be identified as odd, that specialists would be brought in, that someone MIGHT ID it as cutaneous anthrax...a small risk, but a risk. If that happens, then the whole plot (AND the 9/11 hijackings) come completely unraveled.)
4) We still have the issue that the letters themselves, as I've seen noted several times, appear to be written by someone TRYING to make them look like they were written by an Arab Muslim, not what an Arab Muslim would write. They'd either have "Alluhu Akbar" OR "God is Great" but an Arab wouldn't mix the languages to write "Allah is Great."
5) Why were Daschle and Leahy singled out for the "high quality" stuff? If the 9/11 hijackers are clueless enough to think AMI in Florida is an important media company, why are two high profile Democratic senators selected? Seemingly not at random nor out of a Senate directory. NO Republican or anyone from the executive branch is. Neither is ESPECIALLY famous for being an anti-Iraq war hawk or Israel supporter. As much as people around here like to speculate a lot, I've yet to see anyone speculate on what specific policies or legislation the two senators share that would PO someone, and I think it's pretty clear why.
People are acting like this whole thing (which actually is old news, I remember this info, but less specific, going around MONTHS ago) solves the whole anthrax thing. But if FR has a problem, it's people completely lacking skepticism of what they WANT to believe. People want to believe the anthrax attack was done by nasty Muslim Arabs, and it's causing people not to treat this with the same skepticism as they would something they DON'T want to believe.
And I don't want to hear "There are no coincidences." Dumbest statement in the world, that comes from people that watch to many movies. In movies, these days, there are no red herrings in mysteries and thrillers; EVERY incident and fact means something. REAL LIFE is FILLED with meaningless coincidences, info that is pure noise, etc.
Start by accepting the letters at face value, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a hoax. I was held without bail for a month because some paranoid morons didn't take some letter at face value and decided they were too smart to be duped. Even as more letters came in as I was held, they discounted that because in their paranoid scenario it didn't fit. (See Caine Mutiny to view a paranoic's reaction to facts that don't fit their paranoid scenario.)
Paranoia is a very common mental illness usually striking middle aged males. They can act seemingly normal in most respects. Condit is a perfect example, but he is a dangerously paranoid personality. Unless there is a compelling reason not to accept the letters at face value, the analysis that they are a hoax is an analysis based on paranoia...
A few years ago I got a letter someone had sworn they sent weeks ago. I didn't believe them until I got the letter. It was STAMPED "Found in Supposedly Empty Bin." Mind you, this a STAMP the USPS has, so the occurence must be quite regular. To me, the stamp is hysterical, building in as it does an excuse as to why my mail was delayed.
While I agree with you that conincidences, even extraordinary ones, occur all the time, they occur singularly. It is not reasonable to discount multiple "potential" coincidences in analyzing facts. There is nothing reasonable in discounting 1) Atta looking at crpdusters 2) 1st victim in immediate vicinity of hijackers 3) relative of business dealings with hijackers a victim. 4) THE LETTERS THEMSELVES WANT YOU TO KNOW WHO TO GIVE CREDIT FOR THE ATTACK TO! The hijackers!
And now, of course, competent medical opinion, to a reasonable medical certainty, that one of the hijackers had cutaneous anthrax!
A friend, based in Houston, went to the Dallas book depo and with one look said "It had been a turkey shoot." All the volumes, the books the this the that, all paranoid thinking. (Although I'm not entirely convinced Marina didn't know something). Real simple. One lone nut. Not a very comforting thought for many, and hence the years of paranoid ramblings. Cased closed.
To say the absence of anthrax somehow clears the hijackers is to say an admitted murderer walks if the body can't be found. Of course there is a real possibility of accomplices so this case is not closed. Two significant terrorist attacks, the first really major ones in our history, affecting us all. Both claimed to be by the same nuts. Why would anyone discount this as coincidence unless they have their own paranoid agaenda?
(BTW, I sued and won for above paranoid persecution, and yes, in deposition, each of the two chief paranoics rolled objects in their hands in a pill-rolling fashion during depositions).
Is there a coin-operated vending machine dispensing ball bearings at the J. Edgar Hoover building? There ought to be.
1) Why the heck is it on his LEG? I believe all of the cutaneous anthrax cases from the attacks on postal workers, the NY Post woman, etc. were on the fingers, hands, and arms. What, was the guy mixing anthrax like he was stomping grapes or something?
This is just a silly argument. This guy may not have known anything about it. Later in your post, you mock people for denying the coincidental nature of events. Why couldn't he have slept in the same room where someone had been handling anthrax?
2) If the guy was handling anthrax and knew he was handling anthrax, why wasn't he already on antibiotics beforehand? Why would he need to go to the hospital? Why would he get a lesion? I find the scenario that they were given this powedery stuff to put in letters but no one actually knew what it was fairly unlikely.
See above answer.
3) If he was handling anthrax, wouldn't someone in the group know this was probably anthrax? This is before the hijackings, mind you. He had to have known there would be SOME risk the lesion would be identified as odd, that specialists would be brought in, that someone MIGHT ID it as cutaneous anthrax...a small risk, but a risk. If that happens, then the whole plot (AND the 9/11 hijackings) come completely unraveled.)
Again, they might not have known. Or they might not have been too swift (cf. Zacharias Moussawi).
4) We still have the issue that the letters themselves, as I've seen noted several times, appear to be written by someone TRYING to make them look like they were written by an Arab Muslim, not what an Arab Muslim would write. They'd either have "Alluhu Akbar" OR "God is Great" but an Arab wouldn't mix the languages to write "Allah is Great."
Or they might not.
5) Why were Daschle and Leahy singled out for the "high quality" stuff? If the 9/11 hijackers are clueless enough to think AMI in Florida is an important media company, why are two high profile Democratic senators selected? NO Republican or anyone from the executive branch is.
Cause maybe they identified the Democratic party with the Jews?
Neither is ESPECIALLY famous for being an anti-Iraq war hawk or Israel supporter.
But the New York Post certainly is.
Cutaneous anthrax infections rely on a break in the skin. No cut or scrape = no infection, even if you soak in the stuff. But conversely it doesn't take much to cause an infection once it finds a break in the skin. So I'd assume he had anthrax on his leg because he had a scrape or abrasion on his leg, then walked into a room where anthrax spores were suspended in the air.
"I believe all of the cutaneous anthrax cases from the attacks on postal workers, the NY Post woman, etc. were on the fingers, hands, and arms."
Almost everybody has small breaks in the skin of his hands and arms. This goes double for people who open and handle mail, who routinely get tiny paper cuts. Even an extremely small cut is sufficient for an anthrax infection.
"2) If the guy was handling anthrax and knew he was handling anthrax, why wasn't he already on antibiotics beforehand?"
Either he draws attention to himself by bringing antibiotics into the country, or he draws attention to himself by getting a prescription for antibiotics (they're not available without a prescription, of course). Neither one is good fieldcraft. Better not to become infected, which he wouldn't have if everything had gone according to plan. (See next point.)
"3) If he was handling anthrax, wouldn't someone in the group know this was probably anthrax?"
I'm sure he knew it was anthrax. His handlers probably told him something along the lines of "This is anthrax. Breathe it and die—but you can buy a face mask in any American hardware store that is 100% effective against it. Be sure to wear gloves, because people often have small cuts on their hands that can get infected." Why would he be told more than that?
"He had to have known there would be SOME risk the lesion would be identified as odd, that specialists would be brought in, that someone MIGHT ID it as cutaneous anthrax..."
But in the places these guys were born, raised and trained, cutaneous anthrax and other skin infections are not odd or all that rare, and specialists are not brought in. You walk in, get the penicillin and go home.
"4) ...They'd either have 'Alluhu Akbar' OR 'God is Great' but an Arab wouldn't mix the languages to write 'Allah is Great.'"
Go to Google and enter the phrase "Allah is Great" with the quotes, so that the search only matches that exact phrase. You'll get 6,250 hits. Among the sites are islamicity.com, zawaj.com, nooraliman.com, madinahmasjid.com, madressa.net, naqshbandi.org, et cetera, et cetera, et lotsa cetera. I'm pretty sure that something far short of 100% of those sites were written by crazed right-wing Jewish microbiologists bent on framing innocent, peace-loving Muslim terrorists.
"5) Why were Daschle and Leahy singled out for the 'high quality' stuff?"
Your reasoning relies on the assumption that the attacker believed the letters would actually be opened by (and thus kill) Daschle and Leahy. I maintain that any American smart enough to mill his own weapons-grade anthrax is smart enough to know that Senators have staffers to open their mail. I also maintain that Saddam Hussein believes every other government official is as paranoid as he is. So I think it's pretty clear that, no matter whom one believes to be behind these letters, one must view them as warning shots, not assassination attempts. And in any case, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to tell someone you're trying to kill with anthrax to "take penicillin now." (I don't know about you, but if I ever send an anthrax letter, it'll be disguised as an ad for scented body powder: "Sniff this!")
So, given that, whom does it make sense to warn? Well, Daschle is the head of the Senate—you know, the body that is constitutionally responsible for signing treaties and that with just 41 votes can prevent a declaration of war. He's also the highest-ranking government official who does not belong to the political party headed by the son of George H.W. Bush. So if Saddam is trying to send the message "you cannot stop us, we have this anthrax," Daschle sounds like a pretty good recipient.
Likewise, Patrick Leahy is the head of the Senate Foreign Operations subcommittee. That body oversees the aid we send to Israel, to Turkey and to Iraqi opposition groups. And as far as the media goes, what better way to get a message out than to send it, one week after 9/11, to ever major news outlet in New York?
"If the 9/11 hijackers are clueless enough to think AMI in Florida is an important media company..."
Has it been established that the AMI anthrax was sent in the mail? I haven't heard of a letter. I have heard, however, of a direct personal connection between the AMI photo editor and two of the hijackers. But hey, Florida's a small place, we'll just chalk that one up to coincidence and move on. It's not essential to the theory one way or the other.
"NO Republican or anyone from the executive branch is."
Maybe Saddam assumed that Bush would not permit anyone in his party or his branch of government to voice dissent with his plan to invade Iraq. There's no point in warning people who lack the power to cave in to extortion.
"I've yet to see anyone speculate on what specific policies or legislation the two senators share that would PO someone, and I think it's pretty clear why."
Okay, I'll speculate: The two senators (who, again, were being warned, not assassinated) are the two individuals not under Bush's control who have the most power to prevent action against Saddam Hussein. They were being told exactly what the letters said: "You cannot stop us, we have this anthrax." Why read more into the situation than is really there? Your theory of a crazed right-wing anti-[insert Democratic policy here] extremist must explain away all the known facts; our theory of an Iraqi warning shot simply accepts all the known facts at face value.