Posted on 02/02/2003 7:28:17 PM PST by AmericanInTokyo
I've long been an admirer of your theory as the most logically satisfying explanation for our behavior since 9/11--though I can't quite bring myself to completely believe in it. Assuming you are correct, though, how do you account for the discipline with which the true situation has been kept hidden? I know the Bush White House is renowned for its lack of leaks, but consider how many other people must possess this information by now. The Pentagon, the Iraqi regime, various foreign intelligence agencies, the FBI, certain Democrats...
Do you really think that all parties are united in wanting to keep the information out of the public domain?
TGS--the above post was intended for you.
I think it's like pushing water downhill. I think most people who follow the Hatfill story understand at some level that it's a charade, that he's in no danger of being arrested, tried, executed, that nobody's going to collect the $2 million reward, etc. But it's a convenient, happy story to pay lip service to. It's kind of like the weapons inspections in Iraq. Consider Bush's words last week: "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." If that's a true statement -- and it is a true statement -- then the weapons inspections are a symbolic act, and there is not the slightest chance that we could every disarm Saddam by this method. But for the time being it is convenient for all sides to pay lip service to the process. Most of politics, international relations, and even warfare consists of theater, of symbolism. The basis of government is the ability to inflict unacceptable pain on one's adversaries. Human beings are endlessly inventive in finding new ways to dress up that ugly fact.
Saddas Insane has got it coming and were the ones who are gonna give it to him !
Individuals--whether they work in the Pentagon, the White House, the FBI, the Iraqi security apparatus, or foreign intelligence agencies--are notoriously unreliable. Thus, you end up with a Daniel Ellsberg acting independently and against the interests of his employers at the Pentagon...
My question is, how is it that there has been no "Ellsberg" with regard to this explosive information?
A late friend of mine participated in the 1963 US-backed coup which culminated in the assassination of Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. Only twelve men knew about that mission, including the participants. All twelve died without the US role in the coup becoming public knowledge. If you have followed politics for any length of time, you should not find it hard to identify many similar instances. Keeping secrets is much easier than you think. If you look at the Amerithrax operation and count the number of people who would have to be in on the secret, it's tiny: below Ashcroft and Mueller, I would count WFO director Van Harp, SA Bob Roth, US bioweapons expert Steve Hatfill, and his flack, Pat Clawson. That's just the "right size" for this kind of operation. Indeed, the fact that Amerithrax is, contrary to what you would expect, not a massive, highly-staffed operation, and the fact that no grand jury has been empanelled, almost a year and half into the investigation, should prompt the question: why is that, exactly? I think the answer is only too obvious.
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.