This topic brings back a freeper post durring the anthrax incident after 9-11. I can't remember the freeper's name, but I won't forget this "theory" on the topic.
His(or her)post came up with this possible answer:
What if the anthrax letters were actually a not-so-subtle threat by Saddam after 9-11??
The reasons for the "mini" anthrax attack, was to threaten the Bush administration if we were going to invade Iraq, because of the tie-ins with Al-Queda and Saddam's BIG role in training them and letting them use Iraq as a "terrorist basic training site" to attack the US.
Saddam was playing the Oil-For-Food (OFF) thing, and had no way to retaliate against the US in any open attack that could be traced back to him.
Therefore, the Anthrax was the way to go. The US was still smarting from 9-11, had the "Gorelick Wall" still in place,Homeland Security was in BARELY underway, and we didn't have ANY idea if a large scale attack was already set to go here with nothing but a "GO" signal to set it off.
If you were the Bush administration at that time, how would you respond to a threat like that?? The airlines were all going broke because of so many people afraid to fly after the 9-11 attacks. Can you imagine a country wide coordinated anthrax attack, with the USPS as the main vehicle, and major ventalation systems in some of the larger buildings, and then in say the major public transportation systems ALL AT THE SAME TIME??
The Bush administration could have been "blackmailed" very easily by Saddam and Al-Queda, by saying they would do a full blown attack if Bush tried to pin the first attack on him. The attack would have been very hard to prove and connect it on Saddam and Al-Queda in the UN arena, due to the state of our intellegence apparatus at that time, and all the UN member countries involved in it, who could have also been "blackmailed" by Saddam and Al-Queda by threatening to expose them in the scandal if they didn't keep obstructing the US from gathering international support for the US and coalition almost certain retaliatory invasion because of the 9-11 and anthrax attacks.
The Bush adminisration could also NOT GO PUBLIC with this information. It would have devestated the US economy, not to mention the mass panic and fear. No US mail delivery for an extended period of time,due to the leaking of information like that is almost unimagionable. The incubation period alone is such an effective weapon, that by the time we realized that a wide spread attack had taken place,.....well let's just say it would be a major "problem".
And what if this "theory" really was true???
I would have to consider a major anthrax attack on the US in the WMD catagory. Why haven't we found out who did it yet?? IIRC, the "type" of anthrax used was only available to approximately four different locations in the world, with one of the four being in Iraq.
Can you imagine being President Bush, knowing what he knew, but not being able to go public with it?? Knowing for the VERY SURVIVAL OF THE US, HE HAD TO RETALIATE, or the "mudlums" would know they were on their way to our total destruction because we DID NOT RESPOND.
And worse yet, having to take all the crap he's taking since then, because the WMD reason given for our invasion of Iraq, didn't find ANY "Weapon's of Mass Destruction" in Iraq, according to the MSM, and the Dems, and all the Bush haters.
And one more thing before I close...can you imagine if some of the major Dem political anti-Bush bunch DO know about the situation Bush is in because of his not being able to expose it as yet, and are using it AGAINST HIM by painting Bush as a liar with this NO-WMD's in Iraq, so Bush is a liar mantra??.....
Sorry for the "rant", but IMHO, I considered that freeper's post kinda interesting.....
That was The Great Satan. Ironically, that is what Saddam called Bush.
It is an interesting theory.
That was The Great Satan. Ironically, that is what Saddam called Bush.
It is an interesting theory.
The Freeper you refer to was probably The Great Satan.
Personally, I think he may have been right. He got a lot of opposition for his ideas on FR, and eventually might have lost his temper over it. I never read the posts that got him banned, but I thought he brought a lot interesting ideas to the table.
The FBI (and the U.S. government as a whole) would certainly not have wanted to panic the U.S. population, so they would have had a motive to insist it was a home grown source.
The best argument AGAINST Saddam's involvement is that the spores were supposedly not that difficult to make. The FBI seems to have reversed itself and now says it was "simple", so the odds that it was "home grown" have gone up (unless you believe the FBI is lying). But even if it was "simple", it does not rule out Saddam. I remain skeptical.