Replies

If the FBI spoon-fed this story to Broad at the NYT, that may be a sign that the "domestic focus" stall is "no longer operative," or at least due for a slow fade. OTOH, while most of Broad's stories recently have been just recycled spin, the NYT did do some good, independent reporting on the anthrax situation early on. To my knowledge, the NYT was the first paper to suggest that "we may be at war with Iraq without knowing it," and they were also the first to debunk the spin that the Daschle anthrax wasn't truly weaponized. So it may be that this story represents genuine legwork on Broad's part. I actually hope it's regurgitated spin: that would imply that the administration is getting close to naming the real culprit (Saddam), which would in turn suggest they have evaluated the threat as manageable and we are ready to go to war. Complicated, isn't it?

Remember that this is the week the New Yorker ran an article about Iraq's connection with genocide, poison gas, and Al Qaeda, together with suggestions that it has employed biological agents in the past. That article, by Jeffey Goldberg, is certainly not just stuff fed by the government -- Goldberg did significant legwork of his own. But I think the fact that these articles are appearing now is no coincidence.

Clinton's a Rapist (are you the same guy, Great Satan?) pretty clearly was right in his theory that the blackmailed U.S. government was unwilling to pin the blame on Iraq until we were ready to go to war with that country.

If the FBI spoon-fed this story to Broad at the NYT, that may be a sign that the "domestic focus" stall is "no longer operative," or at least due for a slow fade. OTOH, while most of Broad's stories recently have been just recycled spin, the NYT did do some good, independent reporting on the anthrax situation early on. To my knowledge, the NYT was the first paper to suggest that "we may be at war with Iraq without knowing it," and they were also the first to debunk the spin that the Daschle anthrax wasn't truly weaponized. So it may be that this story represents genuine legwork on Broad's part. I actually hope it's regurgitated spin: that would imply that the administration is getting close to naming the real culprit (Saddam), which would in turn suggest they have evaluated the threat as manageable and we are ready to go to war. Complicated, isn't it?

It's more than just spoon-fed from the FBI, because of the comments near the end questioning whether the FBI has the necessary expertise to pursue this. That's unlikely to have been in the FBI's spin!