Posted on 06/06/2002 4:38:33 PM PDT by Shermy
If there is a political angle to Bryant's revelations, we'll know soon enough. Her "15 minutes of fame" will turn into 15 weeks -- in front of Democrat-chaired committees and Democrat-inspired media coverage.
Some of you really jump on that "grudge against the government" and show us why you think it is so important - namely your own "grudge against the government" and its employees.
Makes me want to ask if you wait until the letter carrier is coming down the street before you let your doberman out for his morning run. You know who you are, so no need to respond to that.
Let's pass on beyond the slasher statements and get into the real importance of this particular article.
The loan evaluator's statement seems to have spurred an investigative thread that led the Fibbies to the conclusion that the Terrorists really were interested in crop sprayers as a possible weapon - maybe pumping out hundreds of gallons of anthrax on an unsuspecting city.
No doubt the Fibbies went looking for all that anthrax the Terrorists would have stored, but they didn't find it. Instead, they went looking for "other" and smaller anthrax stashes that might be vectored by a finding in any one of thousands of mailboxes in Central New Jersey. They didn't find it there either.
The Fibbies were then left with only two investigative threads. One was to find evidence that blamed Saddam Hussein. The other was to find someone that had nothing to do with the Middle-East. Interviews with Saddam are much more difficult than inventing the middle-aged white male, eh?!
It's quite obvious why the Fibbies told this lady to be quiet. It's equally obvious why they now let her speak. Just three days ago the Czechs were able to authenticate a meeting between Mr. Atta and Iraqi agents. What they were up to is a good question, but it is now the case that implicating the Terrorists in the anthrax attack also implicates Saddam Hussein. Of course, if Mr. Atta was going to spray this stuff from a crop duster, he still would have had to have had access to a large scale anthrax producer. Iraq is undoubtedly one such choice. But, was it the real choice?
Try this idea out. The Iraqis gave Atta a small quantity of anthrax to test on a victim of his choice. Unfortunately for him, he didn't get his USDA guaranteed loan for a crop duster, so he didn't test it and he didn't put in a larger order for a mass quantity of anthrax to be delivered at a future date. In the end he used the anthrax anyway.
Alternatively, Atta did get a large shipment of anthrax and it's still in storage somewhere in Florida. We will find it someday.
There are a number of other ways to look at this, but finding Mr. Atta involved in the anthrax attack does not absolve Iraq of responsibility in the matter. A rational analysis of the situation ties Iraq even that much closer to the problem.
Solid point. This development is strongly suggestive that somewhere, somehow, Atta had access to more than a few grams of the material, doesn't it?
We've always assumed as much. But this serves as convincing confirmation.
There are three different pieces of evidence here, and it's not clear how they are linked:
The meeting in Prague connects Iraq with 9/11, but it's not clear that it connects Iraq with the anthrax mailings. The vacuum bottle is suggestive, but it's not definitive (and I'm not even sure that the story of the bottle is accurate, since it has not been widely reported).
It is possible that Atta received the anthrax from the Iraqi agent in Prague, was thinking of delivering it via cropdusters, but ultimately arranged to have it mailed instead. But that's only one scenario. Other scenarios are also consistent with the limited evidence we have.
He may have gotten this, but it may not be in Florida. Atta traveled thousands of miles in rental cars during the summer of 2001. It is unknown where he went, or why. Maybe anthrax was stashed in a number of U.S. cities. It could have been placed in storage lockers or the like, or it could conceivably have been delivered to trusted agents.
Your comment: Huh? What did he mean by this? Wasn't Atta Egyptian? Does this mean he considered Palestine part of his "country"? Or might it mean that Atta was really Palestinian?
I too find this a curious comment. It's well-documented that Atta was Egyptian (unless, of course, there's a stolen identity involved here in some way, which seems doubtful, given the many photographs, etc.). Could he have been talking about Afghanistan, or Iraq? But none of these really make much sense.
Perhaps what he meant is that the U.S. has, from his perspective, "destroyed" the cities in Egypt via the introduction of Western culture, by supporting a pro-Western government, by not allowing the implementation of an Islamic state. To him, that would represent far greater "destruction" than physical bombs.
On the other hand, when thinking of a crop duster, he would ultimately need a large amount.
So, have him getting a sample "to test on a victim of his choice" initially, with delivery of a large amount later later.
Sounds just like a wholesale honey trade in fact! (Osama Bin Laden was the world's largest honey broker - keep that in mind - this whole crowd knew how to trade.)
In the end, when he couldn't buy a plane and had to hijack airliners, that sample of anthrax he received prior to purchase of the bulk quantities, got used anyway!
Now, let me put a twist on this that I just thought of while considering the fact these guys are traders. Imagine that Mr. Atta got a sample of anthrax to test from the Iraqi agents. However, this was not actually Iraqi anthrax - rather it had been taken from an American laboratory. The Iraqis imagined that it was really good stuff, and in light of their own miserable results using their own stuff, they didn't want to miss a chance on making the sale.
In short, Saddam Hussein's anthrax merchants may have carried out a "bait and switch" transaction on Osama Bin Laden's anthrax purchasers.
That's been the history of the relationship between the city Arabs and the desert Arabs for thousands of years! These guys cheat. They are also gullible. Hence the need for mordita.
This is not an unusual belief. In fact, the US Congress shares it. In Washington DC no building may be taller than the US Capitol.
That is the current law, but the Old Post Office Building is taller than the U.S. Capitol (315 ft. vs. 288 ft.). It was built in 1899, 36 after the completion of the Capitol building. See this link.
In 1899, Congress passed the Heights of Building Act, saying that no building in Washington could be taller than the Capitor or other significant government buildings. A 1910 law further limits building heights to 20 feet more than the width of the street that the building fronts on. The situation with regard to architectural embellishments and the like is more complicated and somewhat controversial. See this Washington Post article.
Not that this has anything to do with Mohamed Atta, but I found this interesting and I didn't know it before I looked it up.
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.