Some Fort Detrick Labs Closed

Very interesting; thank you for posting that.

So the source is a personal communication. That suggests one of three things:

(1) a simple misunderstanding;

(2) a correct statement, made by someone who knows, in spite of the apparent contradiction to the Texas story;

or, (3) intentional disinformation.

I don't know how to distinguish which of these possibilities is the case.

You ask whether there is evidence of previous terror attacks carried out on anniversaries calculated using a Western calendar. There are several! The 1993 WTC bombing was on the second anniversary of the Gulf War ceasefire (I think we can dismiss Ramzi Yousef's claim that they did it when they did it because they were running out of money). The foiled "millennium plot", of course, was scheduled for the biggest anniversary of all - and coincided with a successful hijacking in India which led to the release of Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was involved with the Pearl kidnapping and possibly the funding of 9/11.

These are both reasonable examples. The millennium plot in particular is close in spirit to your New Year's Day theory.

As for the WTC bombing on Feb. 26, 1993, being on the anniversary of the U.S. victory in the Gulf War, on Feb. 26, 1991, it's interesting that the WTC bombers themselves did not state the connection. Moreover, it's the kind of thing that is easily staged so as to generate suspicion if you want to get somebody else blamed for an attack. I don't know if that's the case here or not.

Very interesting.....Hmmmm!!!

Yes, this is speculation on my part.
But why get out the ISU, Ames, Iowa labels, if they didn't get a sample as well.

Good point.

The only evidence that I have is that I saw two lesions in 1990

Which could have been anthrax, but unfortunately there's no way of telling whether it was Ames or not (or even if it really was anthrax rather than something else).

and the University destroyed something that never should have been destroyed.

Yes, definitely true, and a strong indication that somebody may have had something to hide. It's possible that what they were hiding wasn't something related to the anthrax mailings though, but something else (or even something that they thought might have been related to the mailings but in fact wasn't).

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just want to cover all the bases systematically so that we don't jump to a conclusion that might be wrong.

I wonder if there might have been two different strains both of which were, coincidentally, dubbed "Ames"? There doesn't seem to have been any standardization in the naming process, nor any central clearinghouse of names.

I do not believe that Leahy et cetera were taking sides between Iran and Iraq. Their agenda was to blindside US covert operations, whether officially approved or on the side.

Back to the big picture for a moment. The following events occurred in order: the 9/11 hijackings, the anthrax letters, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq. The relation between two of those events is obvious: al Qaeda carried out the hijackings, and al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. If al Qaeda also sent the anthrax letters, and got the anthrax from Iraq, that would explain the other two events. But:

The 9/11 Commission said there was no substantial relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and didn't even raise the possibility that the anthrax letters were connected to either.
Iraq has been occupied for well over a year, and no evidence of WMD stockpiles or active WMD programs has been announced.
Similarly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been in captivity for over a year (along with hundreds of other al Qaeda members), and Saddam Hussein has been in captivity for over six months (along with dozens of other regime figures), but there is no sign that they have confessed to an Iraq-9/11 connection.
Also, al Qaeda has in no way taken responsibility for the anthrax letters, whereas they have long since claimed 9/11 (KSM having consented to an al Jazeera interview as long ago as mid-2002).

Logically speaking, there are a variety of possibilities (this is not an exhaustive list):

The anthrax letters were a collaboration of Iraq and al Qaeda, but the USA still can't prove it.
The anthrax letters were a collaboration of Iraq and al Qaeda, and the proof exists, but they're not sharing it with us yet (not now, and maybe not ever).
The anthrax letters were the work of al Qaeda. Iraq was not involved, but the Bush administration thought they were, and that's why they fought the war in Iraq.
The anthrax letters were not even the work of al Qaeda, let alone Iraq. But the Bush administration thought it was the work of Iraq, etc.

Laurie Mylroie advocates position 1 (although she thinks it could be proven right now, if only they'd do a DNA test on KSM and Ramzi Yousef). Luigi Warren advocates a form of position 2, and so do I. Ross Getman and Peter Bergen might count as advocates of positions 3 and 4.

I take it that the "narrative of the state" (as Edward Jay Epstein calls it) is embodied most authoritatively in the reports being produced by all the various commissions. The 9/11 Commission has produced an account of al Qaeda's history and of the 9/11 plot specifically. The Senate Intelligence Commission has produced a report on the Iraq WMD intelligence. The Iraq Survey Group is due to report next month on Iraq's actual WMD programs, including its intentions on the eve of the war. So far, there's no "Anthrax Commission"; it's an ongoing FBI investigation, and although all the talk has been of domestic terrorism, they still haven't officially said "We know it wasn't al Qaeda."

To make the case for position 2, one has to show how the (hypothesized) truth about "Iraq, 9/11, and Anthrax" could have been kept out of all those reports. I can think of half a dozen reasons why the government might want to keep it out - but is it really within their means to do so? This is the next question I'm going after.

The 1993 WTC bombing was on the second anniversary of the Gulf War ceasefire

Feb. 26, 1991, and Feb. 26, 1993.

There's one small problem with this theory. You phrase Feb. 26, 1991, very delicately as the date of the "Gulf War ceasefire." Far more than just the date of a ceasefire, it was the date of US victory in the Gulf War, the date Iraq lost. Do you think the losers in the war would really celebrate or commemorate the date that they lost?

Far more than just the date of a ceasefire, it was the date of US victory in the Gulf War, the date Iraq lost. Do you think the losers in the war would really celebrate or commemorate the date that they lost?

Suppose you're a terrorist avenger. You aim to undo American supremacy in the Middle East, to prove that the US hasn't won. What sweeter day to strike back than on the day of the illusory American victory?

If the 1993 bomb had worked properly, the destruction of 9/11 would have occurred in Clinton's second month on the job. Who knows what would have happened then! I think the American recovery and counterattack would have been much slower. And despite the damage from the 1991 war, Iraq was still quite strong at that point - the sanctions had only been in place for a few years. Saddam would have had another shot at asserting regional hegemony, while Clinton was picking up the pieces at home.

What is Peter Bergen's position on the anthrax mailings? I know that he derides Laurie Mylroie as a conspiracy theorist and discounts the possibility of Iraq having worked closely with al-Qaeda, but I didn't know that he had said anything specific about the source of the anthrax letters.

Bump

I can think of half a dozen reasons why the government might want to keep it out - but is it really within their means to do so?

Secrets as big as that one could not stay secret for long. Conspiracy theorists believe that dozens or even hundreds of "insiders" can keep enormous secrets for years. It doesn't work that way. The US government is not some single entity - it's full of people with different opinions who are often at odds with one another. There is certainly something very strange about the anthrax investigation, but the thought that the US government knows it was Iraq and Al Qaeda and is deliberately covering it up makes no sense. Someone, somewhere would have talked by now. Either a US insider, or Iraqi scientists who made the stuff in the first place. There are simply too many people who would have to know. I think the best we can do right now is follow the known evidence - that is, the highly specialized technology that was used to weaponize the spores. If the media can't even ask the right questions, the answers will never be forthcoming.

Logically speaking, there are a variety of possibilities (this is not an exhaustive list):...

By now all 4 possibilities are clearly very unlikely.

I am an advocate of possibility #5.

I am an advocate of possibility #5.

What is possibilty #5?

#5. It wasn't the work of AlQaeda, or Iraq and the Bush administration never thought it was.