Posted on 08/09/2002 8:17:40 AM PDT by dead
Although, if you do want my own tentative inferences from the links I recovered, I suspect Cooper is a careerist slut and Roth a bumbling timeserver.
Uh, the silliness is the idea someone would be using an electron microscope to take a peak at anthrax. Trust me, I'm a biologist. Whoever generated that talking point is clueless about science. It's baloney.
There would be nothing interesting to learn from visualizing the spores under an electron microscope. The whole thing is pure fantasy.
So, not at all outside the bounds of what a typical reporter would call an "electron microscope," if it had a memory system or any other kind of electronic component.
Wait and see. The blackmailer (Iraq) will be exposed, most likely within the next four weeks. And, by all means, bookmark this post and check back with me on 9/11/2002 to see how the picture is shaping up.
The month is almost up. Any revisions on your predictions?
I don't know why the opinions of the doctor and the experts who reviewed the file are not considered evidence and given the weight they deserve. If al-Haznawi had lived, been arrested, and went to court, the prosecution most definitely could use their testimony in building the circumstantial evidence portion of the case. The overwhelming majority of criminal convictions are obtained largely with circumstantial evidence.
Atta and at least two other hijackers had the:
While none of the above absolutely nails the case, it sure presents a boat-load of curious circumstances. They're certainly a heck of a lot more concrete that the very slim stuff that's been made public about Hatfill.
The AM letter was discarded and never recovered. There was at least one other letter that was never recovered: the one that went to CBS news. Dan Rather's assistant discarded it.
If Atta and his gang were involved with the anthrax attack and the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong that they were they obviously had one or more accomplices who did not die on those planes. They may have mailed the first one (this is the significance of the pre-9/11 arrival of the AM letter), but the others were definitely mailed after the hijackings.
I also think it is worth pondering why the anthrax attack stopped. One logical reason could be that the Atta gang was dead and their accomplice(s) were caught up in the DOJ's sweep of Muslim men last winter.
I don't think this has been emphasized enough. There were repeated move's in this direction by a number of the hi-jackers (including Moussaoui). It's hard to imagine them doing this if they were not convinced that bio/chem weapons were available to them.
Another issue that came up early, but seems now forgotten is that the British lab that has anthrax (I'm trying to remember the name--"Porton Down" or something similar) was reportedly owned by an Arab. (please excuse my profiling).
I didn't expect Hatfill to be fired at the end of his one month's paid leave -- I thought that would be disposed of by now -- so that didn't go as I expected. OTOH, he hasn't been arrested, his accusers have largely fallen silent, and the FBI and DOJ have been lambasted by almost every important newspaper in the country for persecuting this man.
The other unexpected development in the last month has been the FBI's surprise return to AMI, supposedly to look for the letter which killed Bob Stevens. That search is almost done: the search warrant expires tomorrow, 9/11/02. But, it is not clear yet whether that is going to be the pretext for an "uncloaking" timed to coincide with the Iraq buildup, or whether it simply represents a last desperate attempt by a stalled FBI investigation to come up with something before the anniversary of 9-11.
Here's Cheney from MTP, last Sunday:
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Its also important not to focus just on the nuclear threat. I mean, that sort of grabs everybodys attention, and thats what were used to dealing with. But come back to 9/11 again, and one of the real concerns about Saddam Hussein, as well, is his biological weapons capability; the fact that he may, at some point, try to use smallpox, anthrax, plague, some other kind of biological agent against other nations, possibly including even the United States. So this is not just a one-dimensional threat. This just isnt a guy whos now back trying once again to build nuclear weapons. Its the fact that weve also seen him in these other areas, in chemicals, but also especially in biological weapons, increase his capacity to produce and deliver these weapons upon his enemies.So, Cheney "doesn't know" if Saddam was behind the anthrax, i.e. if Saddam has sleeper cells in the US equipped with highly weaponized anthrax. That would seem like a rather important thing to know before we go to war with him, wouldn't it? That is rather hard to square with the shambolic public face of Amerithrax. What's going on?MR. RUSSERT: But if he ever did that, would we not wipe him off the face of the Earth?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who did the anthrax attack last fall, Tim? We dont know.
MR. RUSSERT: Could it have been Saddam?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I dont know. I dont know who did it. Im not here today to speculate on or to suggest that he did. My point is that its the nature of terrorist attacks of these unconventional warfare methods, that its very hard sometimes to identify whos responsible. Whos the source? We were able to come fairly quickly to the conclusion after 9/11 that Osama bin Laden was, in fact, the individual behind the 9/11 attacks. But, like I say, I point out the anthrax example just to remind everybody that it is very hard sometimes, especially when were dealing with something like a biological weapon that could conceivably be misconstrued, at least for some period, as a naturally occurring event, that we may not know who launches the next attack. And thats what makes it doubly difficult. And thats why its so important for us when we do identify the kind of threat that we see emerging now in Iraq, when we do see the capabilities of that regime and the way Saddam Hussein has operated over the years that we have to give serious consideration to how were going to address it before he can launch an attack, not wait until after hes launched an attack.
My old view was that Saddam had Bush cornered, that there would be no attack on Iraq until we could protect against the threat presented in those letters, so Bush would continue to stall indefinitely, perhaps for years, then take Saddam on militarily or just let the matter drop. More recently, I've seen signs that he plans to gamble by taking Saddam on, by pointing the finger at him and taking a quasi-legal approach, calling for the Iraqis to cough him up, and applying every kind of pressure short of a frontal attack to get him out. I'm still inclined to think Bush is going to try to get him out sooner rather than later, but it's going to be a bit more drawn out than I thought a month ago. I don't think Bush is in any hurry, nor should he be. Up to a point, drawing this out eases the psychological adjustment of the American people to the realization that Saddam has us in a tight spot, while simultaneously increasing the psychological stress on Saddam and the Iraqi people, and buying time for us to build our defenses. But, the bottom line is, we still don't know what Bush plans to do about Iraq -- he's still holding his cards close to the chest. The chips have yet to fall.
I still don't believe the anthrax attack was coordinated and executed by Iraq. Frankly, it wasn't very effective. Surely they were hoping to kill more than 5 people.
I believe Iraq supplied the anthrax to Al Qaeda, and those half-morons did the best they could with it. In addition, they had no concerns about safe-handling.
I'm pretty sure the administration is sitting on plenty of incriminating information on Iraq. But I believe most of it is tangential (supporting terrorists) rather than direct (planning and execution of the attacks). Doesn't really matter though, either way they're guilty.
The release of the information will most likely come a week or two before we begin the attack. We'll present it to congress (who will come on board), the UN (who will not, but we don't care) and the media (who will hem and haw and see what the polls say.)
Either way, we're going to retaliate against Iraq. And it will be thorough.
One question I have still though is this - Are the intelligence agencies still confused about Hatfill? Or are they knowingly screwing up his life? Or (most likely to me) is Hatfill willingly allowing himself to be used by the intelligence agencies as a decoy, pretending to be "hurt" by the experience, while actually being an agent. There is evidence in his personal history that would suggest he is a likely candidate to be working covertly for one intelligence agency or another.
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.