From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 00:46:20 MST
Mitchell Porter wrote:
>
> As I see it, when it comes to the questions "Who sent the anthrax?"
> and "Why the focus on Iraq?" there are three theories doing the
> rounds. Theory A, the public consensus, says: we don't know who
> sent the anthrax, and Iraq is all about preemption. Theory B says
> the anthrax was sent by an insider, and Iraq war fever is being
> whipped up for reasons unrelated to national security. Theory C
> says the anthrax came from Iraq, and Iraq is being targeted
> because of that. There are other theories possible (the anthrax
> came from Al Qaeda but not from Iraq, it's all about Bush family
> pride, etc.), but those three are illustrative of the possibilities.
>
> I regard Theory B as implausible, because of the Florida
> connection. I regard Theory A as implausible, because the US
> government is clearly choosing not to highlight the Florida
> connection. That leaves Theory C.
>
Do you think A, B, C exhaust the possibilities. There is no
evidence of (C) so it should be dispensed with. Thery D is that
a disgruntled US scientist or scientist wishing to expose some
danger sent the Anthrax. This has the best supporting evidence
to date. The motives are less clear including the possibility
of some government involvement in keeping the climate of fear
whipped up long enough to pass some legislation/directives that
might otherwise have had a harder go of it. I support theory D
and frankly believe the government or at least one of its
tentacles had a hand in it. Otherwise it is difficult to
explain the investigation just dissipating.
- samantha
> Samantha Atkins said
>
>> My understanding is that the evidence pinned the Anthrax down to the
>> US labs (iirc one specific lab) only. It is a far shot to get Iraq
>> using that specific batch and only that and then very ineffectually
>> and small scale. At the most that would tip their hand with nearly
>> zero gain if (a very large IF) they had any real capacity to produce
>> this grade of Anthrax. Even then, the way Anthrax works makes it
>> still very poor as a bio-weapon, relatively speaking.
>
>
> I should have included some sources for everything I was saying.
>
> 5 to 12 labs worked with virulent Ames strain...
> http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxfocusonlabs.html
>
> ... including labs outside USA ...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36408-2001Nov29
>
Trouble is that different labs leave telltales. Only a few of
those labs (iirc) can produce that grade of that strain.
> ... and genetic fingerprinting has not narrowed the field
> http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/769532.asp
>
> Anthrax vaccine works against Vollum strain but not Ames
> http://www.house.gov/reform/ns/hearings/testimony/nass2.htm
>
> Iraq used Vollum, sought Ames in 1988, probably has it now
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10804-2001Nov24
>
No evidence.
> History of Iraq's biological weapons program
> http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/biological.html
>
Not exactly relevant to this particular highly suspicious
Anthrax limited usage. They have no record of using anthrax as
a weapon.
> The anthrax letters look ineffectual only if you think they were
> meant to kill lots of people. They make much more sense if they
> are read as a *threat* to kill lots of people, many more than on
> 9/11
Then we would have had no reason to let the investigation
fritter away and no reason to not tell the people so Bush et.al.
could move much more quickly as they were wont to do with the
invasion of Iraq.
, with a little actual anthrax enclosed as proof of concept.
> They were ineffectual only in that they failed to halt the attack
> on Afghanistan.
This is purest fantasy.
> But I note that there hasn't been an attack on
> Iraq yet, despite months of predictions that it's just around
> the corner. This is why I think, even if the inspectors turn up
> a "material breach", there will be no war, only the destruction
> of the exposed facilities.
>
The large concentrations of troops and equipment for an attack
are a damn expensive bluff. All indications are that the
administration very much plans to go through with an invasion.
I don't see any evidence that your scenario is likely or that
Iraq sent the Anthrax.
> [Bob Woodward: Cheney and Tenet agree not to bring up
> state sponsorship]
>
>> This is at the level of raw conspiracy theory. It is utterly empty as
>> a reason for a supposedly free people to devote lives and fortunes to
>> an adventure half-way around the world. Do you not find it
>> ridiculously weak?
>
>
> I can't tell which conspiracy theory you're criticizing - the
Why not? It was right above the comment. It is the theory of
state sponsorship that the government is supposedly too afraid
to public mention and prove.
> theory that 9/11 had a state sponsor, or the theory that Bush
> et al have covered up the evidence of this.
If there was strong evidence of the former then I see no reason
Bush & company would not have trumpeted it. They would have had
full support for whatever actions they saw fit to take against
such a state.
> The evidence of
> state sponsorship is circumstantial but multiple: Palm Beach County
> links the hijackers and the anthrax, and Iraq is known to have
> liaised with Al Qaeda and to have anthrax weaponization knowhow.
Nope. It is not so known. The one supposed incident usually
quoted as been seriously called into question. The type of
anthrax used requires more sophisticated lab work that not just
any country or facility can handle. It is especially doubtful
that Iraq after a decade of bombing, years of inspections and
systematic weaking of its entire manufacturing base could have
pulled it off. And for the last time, there is zero evidence
the Anthrax came from there. If you are not going to give any
then please drop this.
> This could have been discussed in public and in detail long ago.
> It has not - not by the White House, at any rate. So I conclude
> that someone decided not to do so, at least not yet. The question
> then is why. I see three possibilities:
>
The simpler conclusion is that your chain of reasoning has very
weak links above and that you are therefore barking up the wrong
tree on this one.
> (1) They've judged that circumstantial evidence will not be good
> enough in the court of world opinion. Maybe they're not even
> absolutely certain themselves.
> http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2002/sep/020918.ydstie.html
>
It hasn't stopped them anywhere else in this campaign so I don't
buy this "reason". It is more likely that this assumption is
far too weak for even them to really claim or even seriously float.
> (2) They've decided that it's best to hide the truth for some
> strategic reason - the public would make rash demands for
> retaliation or capitulation, the world would realize that you
> can blackmail a superpower with a handful of dust, or whatever.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/772794/posts?page=27#27
>
This is silly after MAD. Countries make no bones about the
fact the world is a dangerous place. There were no signs of any
blackmail from the anthrax. Any thinking person understands
that certain forms of dangerous weapons are useable by smaller
and/or poorer groups. But acts of terrorism, even in death
tolls in the millions, would not be likely to cause the US to
capitulate.
Again, you are weaving weakly plausible explanations assuming
that an even weaker theory is true.
> (3) They're covering up something politically embarrassing -
> previous cover-ups of Iraqi-sponsored terrorism, covert 1980s
> assistance to the Iraqi weapons programs.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mylroie052902.asp
>
All of our support for Iraqi campaigns including covering up the
incident with the Kurds are part of the public record. There is
not much left to hide there. Besides, most Americans refuse to
look at or evaluate that record so there isn't a problem here.
>> So in effect you throw up so much chaff that the people rubber stamp
>> whatever insanity you wish? That is not acceptable.
>
>
> First and foremost, this is just my guess as to the facts, it's
> not an apologia for war or an endorsement of the alleged cover-up.
> If you think "Iraq did it", of course that makes the case for
> war seem a lot stronger, but then if you think that the anthrax
> threat is real, most of the pro-war talk seems a little naive.
I don't think it is real. An effective biowar to counter a
conventional war is not that easy to wage. Especially not for a
country with very limited delivery vehicles and freedom of
movement.
> And I do have some sympathy for the paternalistic possibility (2),
> even though it makes a mockery of democracy, because the prospect
> of massive bioterrorism *is* grim and terrifying, and it would
> be tempting to spare people that fear as much as possible. The
> main thing to be said against such a policy of deception is:
> surely the people have a right to know that fighting this war
> runs the risk of such retaliation. But I think they know that
> by now anyway.
>
That sort of retaliation is the least of my worries at the
moment. I am much more worried by the vastly accelerated
destruction of American freedom and rights, the worldwide
consequences of stirring up the Middle East hornet's nest more,
the huge potential direct loss of life and property, the
staggering cost of not only the invasion but the subsequent
occupation, and the loss of any real response to many other deep
problems and issues of this time for the duration of this
(never-ending) "emergency".
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:47 MST