Posted on 07/21/2002 12:12:56 PM PDT by knak
Over the last ten months, a lot have been things have been said by public officials concerning the anthrax. They said it was probably natural in origin, that it likely came from a mountain stream, that it was criminal but not terroristic (e.g. from a disgruntled celebrity), that it might have come from the Wiccans, that the most likely source was a right-wing militia, that they were looking at an ex-government contractor who made anthrax threats following 9-11 (who turned out to be a drunk working in a bowling alley), that they were planning to polygraph everybody in the US government anthrax program (it never happened), that genotyping of the anthrax was expected to point the finger at a specific lab (untrue), etc., etc. If by now you haven't figured out that the government is not particularly interested in the public understanding where the anthrax came from, you haven't been paying attention.
The strain issue is another red herring, as the Washington Post pointed out last October (U.S. Says Anthrax Germ In Mail Is 'Ames' Strain ):
The strain has spread by other routes to countless research labs around the world, making its identification relatively useless as a tool for tracking the perpetrators, experts have said.As the Post reported last November, Iraq originally tried to acquire the Ames strain back in the eighties: Anthrax Type That Killed May Have Reached Iraq. Indeed, the chances that Iraq does not have the Ames strain is "near zero" (Deadly Anthrax Strain Leaves a Muddy Trail, Washington Post, November 25, 2001).
So why all the blather about the irrelevant strain issue? Because that's the only hook left to spin the letters as being other than what they appeared to be, follow-up threats intimately linked with the destruction of the WTC. There is not one shred of evidence for a domestic source for the anthrax letters, and plenty of evidence that makes it perfectly obvious that the letters were actually part of the 9-11 operation. But somebody doesn't want us to see the obvious. When one individual who lived less than a mile away from Mohammed Atta's favorite airfield came down with the first case of inhalation anthrax in 25 years, they told us it was probably natural in origin. When a second person came down with anthrax at the same tabloid newspaper, edited by the husband of the 9-11 hijackers' realtor, they told us the anthrax was criminal but not necessarily terroristic. After all, pissed-off celebrities kill tabloid photo editors with weaponized anthrax all the time, dontcha know? When anthrax samples accompanied by explicit threats against the US and Israel were subsequently sent to prominent media and government figures, we were told the anthrax probably came from rightwing militiamen. When certain newspapers, such as the New York Times, interviewed independent scientists who debunked the notion that the anthrax could have been made by amateurs, the weapons lab story kicked in. And then nothing happened. People forgot about the whole thing. Which is exactly what was supposed to happen. Why? You figure it out.
Anthrax is hardly a doomsday weapon and it is hardly the sole factor determining the actions of the U.S. or Iraq in 1991 or now.
He says it will be the mother of all strike-backs.
I agree. I'm sick of America being some kind of world cop. BUT I'm willing to set aside my principles when it comes to Saddam....If we take him out then we can tell the rest of the planet to straight out their own messes.
ISOLATIONISM---The way of the future.
Now instead of one gram letters, imagine hundreds of one KILOGRAM glass jars of the same high grade weaponized anthrax tossed onto subway tracks and into the ventilators of major office buildings and airports and sports arenas all over America on the same day. Hundreds of leaky ten gram of anthrax letters would also be sent through the postal system the same day.
By launching a coordinated one day attack, the "flu-like symptoms" would present at the same time a few days later all across America. Our medical system would be totally swamped, we would not have even a fraction of the cipro available to treat everyone who may have been exposed, which run to millions of people.
Thousands would die, our hospital system would be overwhelmed and frozen, our postal system and subways would be shut down for weeks.
If that's not a WMD attack, I don't know what is. The effects on the US economy as the subways, postal system etc were shut down would be hard to calculate.
Many do believe that the tiny one gram per letter attack last fall was simply a warning, that the nation which produced the high grade anthrax used could just as easily attack with hundreds of kilograms, and not just ten grams. Seen this way, last fall's attack was simply a warning shot.
I suggest you educate yourself about anthrax:
A 1993 ReportA 1993 report by the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment outlines a possible biological terrorism attack on Washington D.C. The imaginary perpetrators used a small airplane to deliver 100 kg (about 220 pounds) of anthrax spores upwind of the city. The number of fatalities would, according to the estimates, vary greatly depending on the weather conditions. The best-case scenario calculates the number of deaths to somewhere between 130,000 and 460,000. A medium estimation counts 420,000 to 1,400,000. The worst-case scenario recognizes that between 1 million to 3 million persons could die as the result of the attack. A fatality rate similar to, or even higher than, that of a hydrogen bomb.
Sources: PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION — Assessing the Risks, a report by the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-ISC-599 — Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1993.
The truth is, you didn't even hear about it as a factor at all. We were supposed to believe that we let Saddam off the hook because of a lack of UN mandate, or concerns about the arab colition, or logistical problems, or Iraqi civilian casualties, or our military casualties. The one thing we weren't supposed to think is because it was the United States was afraid of what Saddam Hussein had up his sleave. So, after he tries tries to grab Kuwait, sets fire to all the oilfields to create the biggest conflagration in history, and tosses ballistic missiles at the civilian population of Israel, we let him live. Hey, I bought the rationalizations at the time, but I can put two and two together:
During the Persian Gulf war, intelligence officials argued that Saddam Hussein would not use his stockpile of anthrax and other chemicals unless he and his regime were clearly threatened. The administration's recent statements about the need for "regime change" in Iraq, its inclusion of Baghdad in the "axis of evil," and President Bush's articulation of a pre-emption doctrine that would justify American military action against any hostile nation that makes unconventional weapons, however, have increased the threat that Mr. Hussein might use his large arsenal, some officials say.So, Saddam had the capability to to unleash a biological holocaust against Israel in 1991, but we let him off the hook because we were concerned about our UN mandate? I don't think so.
Source: Pentagon Shifts Anthrax Vaccine to Civilian Uses, New York Times, June 28, 2002
Said K. Aburish, author of Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, has articulated what we are all not supposed to say in public, for the sake of our own pride and peace of mind:
It is protection for Saddam to have biological and chemical weapons, because, in the final analysis, if pressed, if he is surrounded in Baghdad, he will threaten to use them. He's capable of that. This is a sort of Samson complex--if you push me too hard, I'll bring the house down, on myself and on everyone else. Washington realizes that this is a possibility. For obvious reasons, it's not talked about openly. No one in Washington wants to tell the American people that Saddam is still capable of blackmailing us. They're acting as if he is capable of blackmailing them, but they are not going to admit it openly.Again, I suggest you educate yourself about anthrax, read the text of the letter sent to Daschle, then re-read the article at the head of this thread. Then maybe you will be able to figure it out.Source: An Interview with Said K. Aburish, PBS Frontline: The Survival of Saddam
The use of WMD by Saddam Hussein is, of course, one element of the equation as is, for example, the possibility of urban warfare with potentially large numbers of U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualities (both in 1991 and now). The WMD threat is well-known and it is not unique. Nation states have been blackmailing each other for centuries. The same was said about Hitler and the use of nerve gas toward the end of World War II (it wasn't used). In fact, the exact same phrase "Samson" scenario was used then. There is nothing to "figure out" here.
Guess you weren't watching TV on September 11, 2001. This ain't your grandad's war. Nerve gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. Nor can it be delivered efficiently by hand, nor did Hitler have access to a pool of would-be human missiles. Saddam Hussein perpetrated the most ingenious and most spectacular sneak attack in human history last year. If you think he's just going to roll over and die when we come after him, you are dreaming.
No, I don't think he will just roll over and die. Nor do I think there is any reason to panic.
To suggest that nobody is or has been thinking long and hard about the current situation is not, in my opinion, being very realistic.
The "follies of the last eight years" i.e. the Clinton Administrations is a point upon which we can agree.
That post starts my day off nicely. Thanks.
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.