Posted on 04/19/2002 9:26:11 PM PDT by Pokey78
LOL. I don't remember that one, but it sounds like I haven't missed much!
Yes, the content of an article like this is entirely political. (The information in the article is generally true, but the article is not well-documented, it rambles, etc.) The purpose of the article isn't to add to our knowledge, or to put together known facts in a novel way, or to introduce some new insight into the situation. The point is to get Iraq and anthrax metioned together in a critical mass of news stories so that the eventual "official" connection doesn't come out of the blue (which would make it lack credibility for a lot of people).
Remember, the initial story was that the first victim got it from drinking water from a stream. Inhalation anthrax cannot even be gotten in this way. Clearly, they wanted to keep the lid on, and this was simply the first story they could come up with.
Next, we were told it was very crude stuff, something a beginner could make in a bathtub. They even blamed it on right wing extremists (a good way to get the media to go along).
This was a very big lie, and better have had a very good reason.
Remember, the anthrax was sent through the mail, in envelopes sealed with tape around the edges to minimize the damage, with explicit warnings that anthrax was inside. This was clearly not an attempt to kill people, although some died. It was something else: a warning. Someone did not just threaten to use anthrax against us. They proved they had it. Plus, they sent that proof in a way that was certain to get a lot of public attention. We ALL know they have it.
Anyone who knows enough to make anthrax with particles this small, and no static cling, knows enough to properly distribute it. They also know how to make more of it. They most certainly would not use up their whole supply in warnings sent through the mail.
The perps have not been caught. That means they are still at large in our country, and can strike again anytime they choose. They can kill a LOT of us anytime they want to.
I would bet the ranch that our government has received a separate message threatening us with a real attack, one that could kill hundreds of thousands (even millions) of Americans, if we attack the wrong country. The message itself would not have needed to specify the country because it would have been obvious: Iraq.
For some reason, the government has now decided to let some more info out. Now we find out it was incredibly advanced stuff. Did the FBI just goof? And then, months later, discover the goof? Or, much more likely, did they know all along?
Either the FBI was massively incompetent (could be, but I hope not), or they knew all along. For some reason, the government has decided now is the time to gradually start letting the truth out. It is not hard to connect the dots.
If we had officially announced Iraq was responsible, the public would have demanded immediate war with Iraq. We were not ready (thanks to Billyboy Cartoon), so we did not say so. We took care of Al Qaida instead, and made our preparations.
Now, all of a sudden, new articles that lay the foundation for an anthrax connection to Iraq are coming out almost daily. Hmm...
...
If you want to get really mad, take a look at the readiness of our military after eight years of the Cartoon. A huge spare parts shortage, very low supply of cruise missiles, only ONE infantry division considered fully combat ready, etc. Billyboy Cartoon was not just corrupt. He did more damage than an avowed enemy could have done.
Exactly.
More show, less tell!
The exact quote regarding the veiled Iraqi threat made by Saddam's son:
Either on the 19th or the 20th of September, an article that appeared allegedly written by Uday [Hussein] in the Babel Newspaper referred to a ''virus that would''—the exact wording to the effect that''A virus would attack the raven and it would respond to antibiotics at first, but in later times, would no longer be controlled by antibiotics.'
You are right on the mark there. However, I'm not sure the article is that factual. The writer (who is only an editorial writer, not a science writer) picks and chooses from the spate of (deliberately) conflicting mis and dis information pieces put out recently.
The Weekly Standard is one of the "neo-con" organs beating the drums for war with Iraq. I think this article has to be taken with more than the proverbial grain of salt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.