Replies

I believe there was a thus far unpublicized credible threat of an anthrax attack on White House personnel on September 11th, 2001. Why else administer Cipro?

The truth is, the anthrax follow-up was a no-brainer. It was immediately obvious to Team Bush who was behind the WTC attack. I mean, let's be real: aside from Iraq, what other countries were we in a state of war with on 9/11/01? The only WMD we know Saddam has at his disposal that is scary enough to deter the United States from retaliating is -- you've guessed it -- anthrax. There could well have been a specific, unpublicized threat, but it is by no means necessary to invoke one to explain the Cipro.

If you are familiar with the shape and direction of the US biodefense program since the Gulf War, you will understand that it has been primarily motivated by the scenario of Saddam launching a massive, clandestine terror attack on the US and backing it up with biowarfare blackmail. Which, of course, is exactly what happened last year. People usually do see threats coming and understand their own vulnerabilities -- for example, the French high command knew perfectly well that the Maginot Line was useless against Hitler -- but the reality is, until they happen, most people would rather think about something else.

There could well have been a specific, unpublicized threat, but it is by no means necessary to invoke one to explain the Cipro.

Are you suggesting that, in the event of a massive (though not biological) terror attack, there was a protocol to dispense preemptive doses of Cipro to White House staff?
Possible, I suppose. I still lean towards the credible anthrax threat on 9/11 scenario.
In any event, as you said, both point to Saddam.