Replies

'I have always believed Iraq was behind it.'
>>>>>>>>>>>.
I have always believed this, too and think the administration turned their focus to Iraq in earnest after the anthrax was sent here in the US. I suspect they have always known he was behind it, but to publicly state it [since it was an actual use of weapons of mass destruction provided to terrorists by a nation state]would have required a swift and terrible response. That could have brought us to a 'brink of world war' senario very quickly just from the sheer ferocity and the need for everyone to immediately choose sides - perhaps in the heat of political and religious fervor and too quickly for thoughtful response and good judgement.

I think the administration prefered to handle this with a methodical step by step approach that would allow us to better prepare our Clinton scaled back military and weaponry and handle Iraq on our terms and in our own time.

Our administration has talked many times about Saddam being able to hand off WMD to terrorists without leaving personal 'fingerprints' and I think these statements have not been based on hypothethical situations but on one we have already experienced. Someday I am expecting to see evidence that Atta set this up to happen as a follow up to his demise in the bombing. The only reason it was not worse was because these guys did not have a good understanding of how best to deliver the agent they were able to obtain from Iraq. We were very blessed they didn't.

Next time we will probably not be as fortunate and there will be a next time. This is why we WILL soon deal with Saddam no matter what.

If it were publicly known that Iraq was behind the anthrax, would France, Germany, and Russia be able to oppose going to war against Saddam?

I totally agree with you. Excellent thoughts!