From: Mitchell Porter (mitchtemporarily@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 13:39:03 MST
Just to respond to Kai Becker's criticism that many other groups
besides Iraq might have obtained Ames strain: there are three broad
reasons to think that Iraq is the most likely candidate. The main
such reason is the evidence that Iraq was the state sponsor for
a string of Al Qaeda-associated plots (WTC93, "Bojinka", OKC95,
finally 9/11). If Iraq sponsored 9/11, and 9/11 was associated with
the anthrax, then it is most likely that the anthrax came from Iraq
as well.
http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=static&page=jaynadavis
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/2395416
The second reason is Iraq's track record with anthrax. Anthrax was
indisputably central to Iraq's biological weapons program. In 1995,
when the program's existence was uncovered and Iraq began admitting
details to inspectors, one of the revelations was that in late 1990,
with the approach of the Gulf War, Scuds were loaded with liquid
anthrax and pointed at Israel, to be fired in the event that
coalition forces marched on Baghdad (TIME, Sept 4, 1995). There's
a whole book ("The Continuing Storm" by Avigdor Haselkorn) arguing
that this is the real reason Saddam Hussein wasn't overthrown back
then.
Iraq is also regarded as one of only three states ever to crack
all the problems of anthrax weaponization (the other two being
the USA and the USSR). The anthrax in the letters was prepared
in a sophisticated fashion, so again Iraq is on the shortlist.
Details of the weaponization signature have been kept secret, but
the latest reports say that the spores were a dry powder treated
with a silicon additive ("fused silica" or "silicon nanopowder"),
which is within Iraq's means both materially and technically.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28334-2002Oct27¬Found=true
The third reason, which supplements the first, is the uniqueness
of Iraq's relationship to the USA and to 9/11. Iraq was the only
country with which the USA was officially at war at that time,
and its official media praised the attacks. If you look up "Bin
Laden" by Yossef Bodansky (published in 1999), page 362, you will
find the remark that Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence were reportedly
at work on preparing spectacular terrorist attacks which the
Islamists would "agree with" and which Saddam would "understand",
but with which both would deny any operational connection.
Samantha Atkins said
>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.
Theory B (an insider) was meant to encompass this possibility.
Anyway, just to be a broken record, any advocate of the anthrax
loner theory has to explain the Florida anthrax. Palm Beach County
was absolutely central to the hijackers' penultimate preparations;
the three out of four team leaders who were based in Al Qaeda's
Hamburg cell all met up there, along with many if not all of
their support teams (see "The Cell", John Miller et al). There
are maybe a dozen anecdotal reports or verifiable facts linking
the guys who were in Florida either with the anthrax target
(American Media Inc) or with an interest in chem/bio terrorism.
Under Theory D, all that has to be explained away.
http://rateyourmusic.com/yaccs/commentsn/blog_id=90000016394_and_blog_entry_id=83016091#3107465
>Trouble is that different labs leave telltales. Only a few of those labs
>(iirc) can produce that grade of that strain.
Genetically, the Ames anthrax from those dozen labs is apparently
indistinguishable. If by "grade" you mean the skill with which
the anthrax was weaponized (finely milled powder, silica dopant
to keep the spores separated), I don't know whether any of those
labs does that stuff, or whether they concentrate purely on
culturing. The Dugway facility in Utah may have performed anthrax
aerosolization experiments with samples from USAMRIID, but they
don't say which strain was used.
http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/dugwaypressrelease.htm
>>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.
But as they confessed to the UN in 1995, they were ready to do so
in 1991, if pushed to the edge.
>>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.
The argument for a cover-up runs like this:
1. If the people thought that the anthrax came from Iraq, they
would support war against that country.
2. But if we do go to war against Iraq, Iraq may arm Al Qaeda
with bucketloads of biological weapons, against which our civilian
population has little to no defense.
3. Since we can't risk open war against Iraq just yet, we have
no reason to publicly make the case for the Iraqi connection.
>, 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.
The last round of anthrax letters were postmarked October 7,
the day the bombing started.
>>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.
I wouldn't exactly call it a bluff. But I would maintain that
for now, both sides are being deterred from all-out conflict.
I doubt that Al Qaeda is deterred, given its cult of martyrdom,
but the potential state sponsors who have the WMD arsenals are.
So all Al Qaeda can do is stake out the London Tube, and wait
for the nerve gas to show up in the mail. Similarly, the USA
feels confident enough to conduct assassinations and intercept
missile shipments, but that seems to be about it.
>>[...] Iraq is known to have
>>liaised with Al Qaeda [...]
>
>Nope. It is not so known. The one supposed incident usually quoted as
>been seriously called into question.
The *way* it has been called into question is very suspicious.
In the most recent round, the New York Times ran a story saying
that Czech President Havel had discreetly contacted the White House
to say that there was no evidence of the Prague meeting. This story
served as the basis of an editorial the next day. Buried in that
same issue was an amendment to the first story: "Havel Denies
Telephoning U.S. on Iraq Meeting". They manage to rescue the
basic premise: 'The spokesman ... said Mr. Havel was still
certain there was no factual basis behind the report... In an
interview last month, Mr. Havel told The Times that he knew of
no proof that the two men had met. "I definitely wasn't at this
meeting," Mr. Havel said with a laugh.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/23/opinion/23WED1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/23/international/europe/23CZEC.html
Havel had said earlier that he gave the report that Atta met
with the Iraqi diplomat "70 percent" odds of being correct.
http://edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/prague.htm
The operational commander of 9/11 is believed to have been Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed (uncle of WTC93 bomber Ramzi Yousef, who worked
with him on 9/11 precursor Operation Bojinka). Before KSM was
publicly named as the mastermind, ex-CIA officer Robert Baer
published a book ("See No Evil", epilogue) placing him in Prague.
And the NSA intercepted Atta calling KSM just before 9/11.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/politics/3416632.htm
So the whole media saga surrounding the alleged meeting in Prague
gives every appearance of being an exercise in the management
of public opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:48 MST