Experts doubt anthrax attack was work of lone, rogue scientist

The Commercial Appeal & Washington Post ^ | 10/28/02 | Guy Gugliotta & Gary Matsumoto

[martin gibson]

Out television = Our television

(I am soooo stoooopid...)

[polemikos]

I'm also torn as to the direction of FBI "disinformation" on this attack.
Various possibilities include:
- Smarts: the FBI, at the behest of the admin, is sowing disinfo while the military prepares for war.
  ("disinformation" is a comforting possibility, but increasingly unlikely)
- Liberalism: FBI management, promoted during the 90s, really believe the RW nut scenario.
  (unfortunately, this is at least as likely as the "disinfo" campaign)
- Organizational vanity: The FBI, pop-psych profile in hand, is forcing the case to fit the profile.
  (profiles have media glamour, but are easily subjected to political forces)
- Bureaucratic entropy: The FBI's mission and training focus is on domestic crime-fighting.
  (when you've only been trained to use a hammer, every problem looks like a nail)
- Revisionism: FBI's focus on domestic extremists led to disasters at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
  (therefore, a domestic, RW, anthrax nut would prove the FBI was "correct" all-along)
- Policy Problems: Faulty evidence rules and case policies from the 90's badly affect investigations.
  (Rank-and-file grumblings: Trie; Wen-Ho Lee; Moussaoui; flight schools; OKC; etc.)
- Stoolie: The FBI is attempting to protect a mole or some other source of info.
  (maybe they have someone on the inside, but it seems unlikely)
- CYA: They're covering for some yet-unknown, internal lapse or action.

[per loin]

My assumption is that the FBI is not really as incompetent as they appear in public

Kinda like how they didn't ignore the Chevy Caprice report?

[eno_]

Criminy! "EternalHope" is right. Do you also believe the used car salesman when he says "I have to get that approved by my manager?"

[The Raven]

Good analysis !!!!!!!!

[Wordsmith]

Ping. The first sign of "unnamed sources" in the Administration making a direct connection between Iraq and anthrax. Is the truth on it's way out? Are you still thinking the timetable is for 2005 to take down Saddam?

[oldcomputerguy]

The US anthrax attack did not use bentonite, it used silica. The IRAQI connection was dismissed because they purportedly used bentonite but evidence referenced in the news account I read this morning indicated the IRAQ had used silica before.

On top of that the refinement of the spores was listed as 50X anything the US had produced and 10X anything the Russians had produced.

Hardly the stuff of some disgruntled loner in his apartment.

[The Great Satan]

The time table for any direct confrontation with Saddam will be governed by our ability to blunt his anthrax deterrent. Best case, we're looking at some time in 2004. There may be military action before that, but it will be calibrated not to force his back to the wall -- e.g. we could launch a conventional, Afghan-style war for territory initiated from the No-Fly Zones. In addition, massive pressure is and will continue to be brought to bear to isolate him and weaken his grip on power. The US has many levers to pull to achieve that end, although they ultimately must be backed up with a convincing show of force. Bottom line is, if the United States commits itself to removing Hussein, he will be removed sooner or later (more probably later) -- everybody knows that, and that means we will succeed in isolating Hussein. But everybody has to be convinced that Bush means what he says -- that he won't cop out and settle for the Left's preferred option, which is a balance of terror with Saddam and the US as co-equals, one with nuclear-tipped ICBMs, the other with anthrax-capable sleepers forward-positioned in US population centers.

And no, I wouldn't read much into this Washington Post story w.r.t. the timing of a confrontation. Like I say, the timing of the confrontation will be dictated solely by the rapidity with which we can put our civil defenses in order. I've been following the subterannean war of words regarding the anthrax and the Atta-al-Ani meeting (same issue) very closely for a while now. Bush had me fooled in the run-up to 9/11. I thought he might be ready to go public, based on the shift in the power spectrum of the anthrax/al-Ani "chatter." I suspect that was a bit of gamesmanship designed to bolster the long-shot strategy of offering Saddam exile -- if so, it didn't work, although it probably did make him nervous.

The way I keep a balance in the face of these calculated push-me-pull-you media feeds is to recall that the overriding aim of the administration is to keep things ambiguous. They need to retain the option of pointing the finger at Saddam for 9/11 and the anthrax at some future date. If they lose that, Saddam's gambit has worked perfectly. OTOH, if they play that card before we are in a position to act with reasonable safety against Saddam, Bush's hands are tied -- it becomes obvious to the whole world that the United States can be blackmailed with a handful of dust (which, in fact, it can.) From the standpoint of managing public perception, having contradictory, non-dispositive stories floating around in mindspace is like having a buffer, preventing a decisive shift in perception one way or another. It's conventional acid-base chemistry, applied to mass psychology.

[bvw]

The bureaucratic entropy factor is the major one by a few orders of magnitude. Second -- combo of vanity and PC-ism. Just my opinion.

[Wordsmith]

Very interesting analysis, thank you.

[Nogbad]

Ping.

Sorry for any repeats.

[FreeTheHostages]

Thanks for posting a partial -- enough for me to comment on the following:

See how this article starts? See what it's about? Then ask yourself where in my physical copy of the Washington Post this article is placed. The answer is that it's not the lead.

Why isn't it the lead? Why?? Someone once said the Washington Post was a fascinating paper to read because the news is never where you expect it -- in terms of placement within the paper. I think this is true.

[Revolting cat!]

These scientists may know everything there is to know about anthrax spores, but they know nothing about the science of political correctness which has established beyond any doubt that the perp in this case is a lone white redneck gun nut with a rifle! Case closed!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the heads up! I'm glad to see this development - that is, these scientists surely already knew this last year, but IMHO were probably not playing this card on instructions.

[Nogbad]

There is nothing in this article that wasn't known well over a year ago.

I do not think any expert ever believed it was the work of a lone, rogue scientist.

[GailA]

I was surprised to find it in The Commie Appeaser. Usually all you get is warmed over baby cereal that is 2 weeks old.

[Nogbad]

NB

The linked article is not complete. There is more information in the following:

SEE LINK FOR THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE anthrax

[Thud]

What counts is that the weaponization technique wasn't ours or the Soviets. The development process for an anthrax weaponization technique requires industrial-scale resources which are not available to an individual or small group.

Ergo, the Daschle-grade anthrax was manufactured using a weaponization technique developed by a foreign government. That means Iraq. I've been saying this all along.

[Thud]

ping

[FreeTheHostages]

"Usually all you get is warmed over baby cereal that is 2 weeks old.s"

Yup, except some highly, weirdly significant one-paragraph story on page 18. Remarkable periodical.