You are calling the obvious explanation ABSURD and then come back with (as far as I can tell although I'm not entirely sure) a theory about some right-wing Islamophobic neocon who wanted to start a war and get the Patriot Act passed. And NO ONE knows that it WAS NOT an "intentional terrorist attack". And bad choice of words on your part anyway since mailing anthrax is by definition an "intentional terrorist attack" no matter who sent it or what the motive was.
What was the letter supposed to say? Something like: "Ha Ha. Enclosed you will find a white powder and you will soon DIE! PS. Do not go to the hospital."
And why would your American-born middle-aged Republican with an interest in politics and a degree in chemistry assume that Senator Daschle would open his own mail? Was there any real chance that he would have actually killed the Senator? Could the purpose of that letter have been to cause terror?
If you have to distort and twist things to make a point, your point becomes that you have to distort and twist things in order to make a point. I.e., you can't effectively respond without distorting facts.
And why would your American-born middle-aged Republican with an interest in politics and a degree in chemistry assume that Senator Daschle would open his own mail? Was there any real chance that he would have actually killed the Senator? Could the purpose of that letter have been to cause terror?
I don't know that he has an interest in politics. How did you dream that up?
I don't know that he has a degree in chemistry. I would assume that he has a degree in microbiology.
And why are you so hung up on the idea that the Senators don't open up their own mail? What difference does that make? The anthrax mailer clearly wasn't intending to kill anyone. The senate letters stated that the powder was anthrax, and anthrax is NOT immediately fatal. Everyone in Senator Daschle's office took antibiotics, and NO ONE came down with a case of anthrax. The deaths from the senate letters were ALL unpredictable.
Were the senate letters intended to "create terror"? They were clearly intended to motivate the two Senators to reconsider their efforts to delay and water down the Patriot Act. And that was done with letters that were deliberately made to appear to be from Muslim terrorists.
I can't argue that there was no intention to "terrorize" behind the sending of the letters. The question is: How do those letters fit into the pattern made by all the other evidence? And the answer to that is: The evidence shows that the anthrax mailer wanted to show the Senators what could happen if America failed to round up every Muslim in America who could even SEEM to be dangerous.
Distorting and twisting facts and arguing over the definitions of words isn't very productive.