Amusingly, the new CDC head, Dr. Julie Gerberding, makes a Freudian slip which suggests exactly that in this PBS interview, Getting Ready:
GWEN IFILL: Based on what you said a moment allege about the potential risks of giving this [smallpox] vaccine in advance, have you had to factor into the possibility that the risks may outweigh the benefits?DR. JULIE GERBERDING: Well, in the pre-event situation, I mean, before we actually have a case of anthrax that's exactly what we're struggling with.
I would add to your points the fact that there is no compelling evidence in the public domain that Saddam possesses smallpox, and there are strong indications that the contrary is the case - viz Hussein Kamel's testimony. Nor is the United States government acting as if Saddam had smallpox, even though we now have enough vaccine to innoculate the entire population. In fact, the emphasis on post-attack treatment in Bush's plan puts in place precisely the infrastructure that would be required to respond to an anthrax attack. No anthrax vaccine exists or is in prospect which is sufficiently safe to risk mass pre-vaccination.
Why the doubletalk? Er, well imagine what people might think if the airwaves were filled ceaselessly with stories of Saddam's anthrax. Badabing badaboom, the penny drops, everybody gets it -- not just the Great Satan and his fans on Free Republic. No more economy, no more exile card, no more exposure card, game over.
On the other hand, here we have an article, co-authored by Laurie Mylroie (who has intelligence connections, and who is very careful in her assertions), saying that Iraq "is strongly suspected of having" smallpox. It's seven years since Kamel defected, so there's been plenty of time for new acquisitions... The article, however, focuses mostly on anthrax.
We agree!